As per case facts, the Petitioner, an NRI, sought to quash criminal complaints filed by his nephew, the Respondent, under the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques. The Petitioner alleged ... that the Respondent, whom he had appointed as a Director in his company, mismanaged the business, manipulated accounts, and caused financial losses. Following disputes and the Respondent's removal from directorship, the Respondent presented three cheques from the Petitioner's personal account, claiming they were for commission and brokerage, but the Petitioner argued they were forged from old, cancelled cheque books and that he had no personal liability for company dues. The question arose whether the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt and if the complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act were maintainable given the absence of proof for the alleged debt and the personal liability of the Petitioner for company dues. Finally, the Court concluded that the Complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt, as there was no documentary evidence like a Board Resolution for the alleged commission, and the company's financial records did not reflect such an outstanding liability. The Court also found crucial letters presented by the Complainant to be manipulated. Any liability would primarily be that of the company, not the Petitioner personally. Therefore, the complaints were quashed, and the petitions were allowed, deeming it an abuse of process of law.