https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764352 Quashing was declined because inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS is to be used sparingly, and the complaint contained specific averments showing the petitioners' involvement in the transaction with no jurisdictional or legal infirmity in the revisional order. In the cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques issued on behalf of the firm: the demand notice was timely in light of the COVID-19 limitation extension, and the pleadings sufficiently alleged that the petitioners were partners responsible for the firm's business. Liability was confined to the firm-related cheques, not cheques issued in a personal capacity. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764352 Quashing was declined because inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS is to be used sparingly, and the complaint contained specific averments showing the petitioners' involvement in the transaction with no jurisdictional or legal infirmity in the revisional order. In the cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques issued on behalf of the firm: the demand notice was timely in light of the COVID-19 limitation extension, and the pleadings sufficiently alleged that the petitioners were partners responsible for the firm's business. Liability was confined to the firm-related cheques, not cheques issued in a personal capacity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764352