Quashing under inherent jurisdiction is limited where cheque liability and directors' responsibility raise disputed facts requiring trial.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the connected summoning order were not liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and the cheque was pleaded to have been treated as security for a second transaction after liability was admitted. The Court found the averments on directors' responsibility for the company's affairs substantially compliant, and held that disputed factual defences, including the cheque's character and the effect of resignation, could not be examined at the threshold because they required evidence and cross-examination. Interference under inherent jurisdiction was confined to extraordinary cases of manifest injustice, which was not shown, so quashing was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed a prima facie case that the cheque, though originally issued in relation to an earlier transaction, was mutually treated as security for the second transaction and was presented on the accused's alleged instruction after liability was admitted. The pleadings regarding the directors' responsibility for the company's affairs were held to be substantially compliant. The Court held that disputed factual defences, including the nature of the cheque and the effect of resignation, could not be examined at the threshold in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such matters required evidence and cross-examination before the trial court. Interference was justified only in extraordinary circumstances involving manifest injustice, which were not shown.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the facts and the Court declined to interfere.

---