Summoning order challenge fails where prima facie offence is shown and disputed defences require evidence.

A belated challenge to a summoning order may be declined on delay and laches where no plausible explanation is offered. At the stage of summoning or framing notice, the court examines only whether the complaint and supporting material prima facie disclose the offence; it does not assess the defence on disputed facts. Where the cheque bears the accused's signature and objections such as lack of consideration or the effect of conversion of a company into an LLP require evidence, no infirmity arises in the summoning or notice order. The petition for quashing or discharge was therefore not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the summoning order was liable to be rejected on account of delay and laches. (ii) Whether the summoning order and the subsequent order framing notice disclosed any infirmity when the complaint and material showed a prima facie case against the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the summoning order was liable to be rejected on account of delay and laches.

Analysis: The challenge to the summoning order was raised after an inordinate lapse of time, and no plausible explanation for the delay was shown. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction, stale challenges to process orders are not entertained where permitting such belated interference would prolong criminal proceedings without justification.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was barred by delay and laches and could not be entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the summoning order and the subsequent order framing notice disclosed any infirmity when the complaint and material showed a prima facie case against the petitioner.

Analysis: At the stage of summoning or framing notice, the Court is concerned only with whether the complaint and supporting material prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence, not with whether the defence will ultimately succeed. The cheque admittedly bore the petitioner's signature, and objections relating to absence of consideration or the petitioner's exact status at the relevant time required evidence and could not be adjudicated at this stage. The conversion of the company into a limited liability partnership did not, on the material before the Court, warrant discharge, particularly in light of the statutory transfer of assets and liabilities upon conversion.

Conclusion: No infirmity was found in the summoning order or the order framing notice, and the petitioner was not entitled to quashing or discharge.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were allowed to continue, and the petition seeking interference with the criminal complaint and related orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court will not interfere with summons or notice orders where the complaint and material disclose a prima facie case, the cheque bears the accused's signature, and the accused's defence depends on evidence; a belated challenge may also be declined on delay and laches.

---