Disputed notice, document supply, and directors' liability issues are not resolved in inherent jurisdiction when trial-level evidence is needed.

Disputed questions over service of opportunity notice and supply of relied upon documents were treated as triable matters, so they were not suitable for quashing at the threshold in inherent jurisdiction. The plea that there was no intentional or wilful default was also left for trial, while the complaint's specific averments on directors' role were considered sufficient to continue proceedings prima facie. The challenge based on a later circular was not accepted for present interference because its retrospective operation was not shown, and questions of applicability and vicarious liability were left to be examined at the stage of charge or notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged absence of opportunity notice and non-supply of relied upon documents could justify quashing of the complaint and summoning order at the threshold. (ii) Whether the absence of intentional or wilful default, the attribution of role to the directors, and the challenge to the applicability of the later circular could be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged absence of opportunity notice and non-supply of relied upon documents could justify quashing of the complaint and summoning order at the threshold.

Analysis: The respondents asserted that opportunity notices were issued and the relied upon documents were supplied, while the petitioners disputed this position. The controversy depended upon disputed facts emerging from the record and could not be resolved conclusively without evidence. Such a controversy was therefore not fit for summary adjudication in inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The contention was held to raise a triable issue and was not accepted as a ground for quashing at the threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of intentional or wilful default, the attribution of role to the directors, and the challenge to the applicability of the later circular could be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The plea that there was no intentional or wilful default was held to be a matter for trial. The complaint contained specific averments regarding the role of the accused directors, which prima facie justified continuation of proceedings. The circular relied upon by the petitioners was of a later date than the alleged contravention, and its retrospective operation was not shown. The questions of applicability of the circular and vicarious liability were therefore left to be considered at the stage of framing of charge or notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The challenge was not accepted for present interference and the issues were left open for the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not entertained for quashing and the parties were relegated to raise their pleas before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions regarding service of notice, supply of documents, intent, role attribution, and applicability of later administrative circulars cannot ordinarily be decided in inherent jurisdiction when they require trial-level determination.

---