<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (6) TMI 891 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793510</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings based on cheque dishonour may be quashed where the complaint materials do not disclose the applicant&#039;s prima facie involvement in the alleged offence. The complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC showed that the grievance was essentially confined to dishonour of a cheque, while the materials did not support the applicant&#039;s alleged role in the transaction; the complaint also referred to another person as the bank manager at the relevant time. On that footing, the High Court held that invoking criminal process was unwarranted, the summoning order could not be sustained, and the proceedings were an abuse of process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 08:45:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 891 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793510</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings based on cheque dishonour may be quashed where the complaint materials do not disclose the applicant&#039;s prima facie involvement in the alleged offence. The complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC showed that the grievance was essentially confined to dishonour of a cheque, while the materials did not support the applicant&#039;s alleged role in the transaction; the complaint also referred to another person as the bank manager at the relevant time. On that footing, the High Court held that invoking criminal process was unwarranted, the summoning order could not be sustained, and the proceedings were an abuse of process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>