Threshold quashing of cheque dishonour complaints is barred where the complaint makes out a prima facie case and facts remain disputed.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC where it discloses a prima facie case. The High Court held that the truth of the allegations, the existence of liability, and the accused's defence are disputed factual questions that must be tested at trial, not in inherent jurisdiction. Because the complaint on its face satisfied the statutory ingredients and no merits-based interference was warranted, the summoning order and criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed allegations which, on their face, satisfied the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. At the stage of quashing, the truthfulness of those allegations, the existence of liability, and the defence of the accused could not be examined as questions of fact requiring trial. The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, and the High Court cannot embark upon a merits-based assessment where the matter turns on disputed facts.

Conclusion: The complaint and the summoning order did not warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the complaint discloses a prima facie case and the dispute involves questions of fact requiring trial.

---