https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797258 Inherent quashing jurisdiction should not be used to terminate cheque dishonour prosecutions where the complaints prima facie establish the statutory ingredients and defences concerning security cheques, coercion, liability, notice service or settlement require evidence. At an advanced evidentiary stage, resolving such disputes would amount to a mini trial; factual defences remain for the Trial Magistrate. Separate complaints based on separate demand notices for dishonoured cheques are maintainable, while a consolidated notice may support a combined complaint. Non-disclosure in income-tax returns and breach of cash-transaction restrictions do not by themselves rebut the statutory presumption or render the underlying debt unenforceable; fiscal contraventions attract prescribed penalties. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Aug 2026 12:50:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797258 Inherent quashing jurisdiction should not be used to terminate cheque dishonour prosecutions where the complaints prima facie establish the statutory ingredients and defences concerning security cheques, coercion, liability, notice service or settlement require evidence. At an advanced evidentiary stage, resolving such disputes would amount to a mini trial; factual defences remain for the Trial Magistrate. Separate complaints based on separate demand notices for dishonoured cheques are maintainable, while a consolidated notice may support a combined complaint. Non-disclosure in income-tax returns and breach of cash-transaction restrictions do not by themselves rebut the statutory presumption or render the underlying debt unenforceable; fiscal contraventions attract prescribed penalties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797258