Quashing of cheque-dishonour complaints barred where security-cheque defence raises disputed facts requiring trial evidence.

A disputed plea that a cheque was issued only as security, and not towards a legally enforceable debt, could not be decided in quashing proceedings where the cheque and signatures were admitted. The High Court noted that such issues turn on contested facts requiring evidence at trial, and that its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly at the threshold. As the materials did not justify interference at the initial stage, the complaint and summoning order were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and summoning order arising from dishonour of a cheque could be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the plea that the cheque was issued as security and not towards a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The petition invoked the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings under the cheque-dishonour provisions and allied allegations of cheating. The cheque admittedly bore the petitioner's signatures, and the question whether it was issued as security or whether the liability was legally enforceable involved disputed facts. Such questions required appreciation of evidence at trial and could not be decided at the threshold in a proceeding for quashing. The extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, and the materials did not show a case fit for interference at the initial stage.

Conclusion: The plea for quashing was rejected and the complaint and summoning order were allowed to stand.

Final Conclusion: Threshold interference under inherent jurisdiction was declined because the defence raised factual disputes that had to be tested in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for quashing, a disputed plea that a cheque was issued only as security and not towards a legally enforceable debt cannot ordinarily be determined without trial when the cheque and signatures are admitted.

---