https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763711 The Delhi High Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction to quash a complaint or summoning order should be exercised sparingly and only where no prima facie offence is disclosed. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint must plead the ingredients of Section 138, and director liability under Section 141 requires specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's affairs at the relevant time. Mere non-signatory status does not by itself exclude liability. On the pleaded facts, the complaint and summoning order were sustained because specific assertions linked the petitioner to the company's business and the transaction. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:52:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763711 The Delhi High Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction to quash a complaint or summoning order should be exercised sparingly and only where no prima facie offence is disclosed. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint must plead the ingredients of Section 138, and director liability under Section 141 requires specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's affairs at the relevant time. Mere non-signatory status does not by itself exclude liability. On the pleaded facts, the complaint and summoning order were sustained because specific assertions linked the petitioner to the company's business and the transaction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763711