{"id":221639,"date":"2019-11-01T09:30:39","date_gmt":"2019-11-01T04:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=221639"},"modified":"2019-11-04T15:05:51","modified_gmt":"2019-11-04T09:35:51","slug":"del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a criminal petition wherein the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and also the criminal complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The petitioner represented by Ehraz Zafar, Akash Tyagi and Sataya Anand, Advocates, submitted that the complaint in question was filed on 2-5-2013, however, the cognizance was taken by the court by issuing summons against the petitioner on 17-04-2017. The punishment under Section 138 is two years and the cognizance taken by the trial court is after more than four years. It was contended that, therefore, the complaint was liable to be rejected.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the outset, the High Court noted the fact remains that the instant was not the case of a warrant. The complaint was filed under Section 138 NI Act which is a summary trial. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in\u00a0<em>Indra Kumar Patodia v. Reliance Industries Ltd.,\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/8LngGW6m\">(2012) 13 SCC 1,<\/a> the High Court held that,\u00a0<strong>The limitation provided under Section 468 is not applicable,<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was further held that,\u00a0<strong>\u201dMoreover, the cognizance of the complaint was taken by the CMM concerned, who thereafter marked the case to the trial court concerned. The trial court after going through the contents of the complaint and evidence on record, issued summons. However, it is provided in Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act that the summons shall be issued within the prescribed time.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In such view of the matter, the Court did not find any merit in the instant petition and, therefore, dismissed the same. [Uma Kant Umesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/uEEshZxL\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine Del 10754<\/b><\/a>, decided on 22-10-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court:\u00a0Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a criminal petition wherein the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3655,23584,27494],"class_list":["post-221639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-limitation","tag-section-138-ni-act","tag-summons"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a criminal petition wherein the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-11-01T04:00:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-04T09:35:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-11-01T04:00:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-04T09:35:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a criminal petition wherein the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-11-01T04:00:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-04T09:35:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/","name":"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-11-01T04:00:39+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-04T09:35:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":354836,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/29\/criminal-complaint-can-be-amended-after-cognizance-138-ni-act-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":221639,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Amendments to complaints permissible after cognizance if no prejudice is caused to accused\u2019; Supreme Court allows amendment in S.138 NI Act complaint","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cProcedure, it is said, is only a handmaiden and not a mistress of justice. However, the said adage has been followed only in the breach in this case. A simple issue of an amendment to a complaint has held up a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"complaint can be amended after cognizance","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/complaint-can-be-amended-after-cognizance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/complaint-can-be-amended-after-cognizance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/complaint-can-be-amended-after-cognizance.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/complaint-can-be-amended-after-cognizance.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/16\/acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-complainant-challenge-appeal-not-revision-ker-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":221639,"position":1},"title":"Cheque dishonour complainant is a &#8216;victim&#8217;; Acquittal must be challenged by appeal, not revision: Kerala HC","author":"Sunaina","date":"February 16, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC as the expression 'victim' includes not only the person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of any act or omission for which the accused person has been charged,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Acquittal in cheque dishonour case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":316243,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/06\/complaint-for-dishonour-of-cheque-filed-within-one-month-date-cause-of-action-arose-allahabad-hc-upholds-summoning-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":221639,"position":2},"title":"Complaint for dishonour of cheque to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose: Allahabad HC upholds summoning order","author":"Apoorva","date":"March 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court said that the petitioner had 15 days' period to make the payment from the date of receipt of notice, on 08-01-2020, and the said period expired on 23-01-2020. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 23-01-2020, as per clause (c) of the proviso\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":370991,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/26\/hc-roving-enquiry-debt-liability-quashing-section-138-ni-act-complaint-supreme-court-section-482-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":221639,"position":3},"title":"High Court Cannot Conduct Roving Enquiry into Debt or Liability While Quashing Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cUnder Section 139 of the NI Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 NI Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Enquiry into Debt or Liability","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243366,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/05\/del-hc-how-the-limitation-period-for-filing-s-138-ni-act-complaints-is-to-be-calculated-what-is-the-effect-of-not-filing-s-142b-application-explained\/","url_meta":{"origin":221639,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | How the limitation period for filing S. 138 NI Act complaints is to be calculated? What is  the effect of not filing S. 142(1)(b) proviso application? Explained","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reversed the order of the lower court issuing summons against the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that the lower courts fell in error while computing the period of limitation. Factual Matrix Petitioner had borrowed a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":325301,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/28\/jharkhand-hc-quashes-criminal-proceedings-against-century-cement\/","url_meta":{"origin":221639,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Typical example of frivolous litigants abusing the Court process\u2019; Jharkhand HC quashes criminal proceedings against Century Cement","author":"Arushi","date":"June 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court stated that when the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was already filed by the petitioners, Respondent 2 had all the opportunity to defend in that pending complaint case, and without doing so, present complaint case was filed implicating the petitioners.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jharkhand High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}