Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint rejected where loan, dishonour, notice, and prima facie Section 138 ingredients were made out.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was tested for quashing on grounds of alleged non-application of mind, absence of a legally enforceable debt, and the complainant's claimed status as an unregistered moneylender. The materials referred to a loan advanced for repayment after ninety days, issuance of the cheque towards repayment, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and filing within limitation, supporting a prima facie offence under Section 138. The summoning order was found to reflect due scrutiny of the preliminary evidence, and the court reiterated that inherent and supervisory jurisdiction is to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process. The moneylender objection was treated as a defence requiring evidence, not a threshold bar, and quashing was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the grounds of alleged non-application of mind, absence of a legally enforceable debt, and the complainant's status as an unregistered moneylender.

Analysis: The complaint, the written agreement, and the preliminary evidence showed that a loan had been advanced for repayment after ninety days, that the cheque was issued towards repayment of that loan and not merely as security, that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, that statutory notice had been served, and that the complaint had been filed within limitation. The summoning order itself recorded scrutiny of the preliminary evidence and satisfaction that a prima facie offence under Section 138 had been made out. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised sparingly only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and the materials on record did not disclose any such abuse. The objection based on the complainant's alleged status as an unregistered moneylender was held to be a defence requiring evidence and did not negate the prosecution under Section 138 at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and complaint was rejected, and no ground for quashing was made out.

---