Section 482 CrPC cannot quash a Section 138 cheque dishonour case when the accused's defence is disputed and evidence-driven.

In a Section 138 prosecution, the accused must ordinarily raise disputed defences before the trial court under the special summary procedure in the Negotiable Instruments Act, including the statutory presumptions and the mechanism for recall of witnesses under Section 145(2). Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash a summoning order or short-circuit the trial where the defence is factual and requires evidence. The challenge to the summoning order was therefore rejected, and quashing was held not maintainable on the facts shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and cheque dishonour proceedings could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the accused's defence could be examined at that stage.

Analysis: A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is governed by a special summary procedure intended to ensure expeditious trial. The ingredients of the offence, the statutory presumptions, and the procedure under Sections 143 to 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 require the accused to raise his defence before the trial court and, if necessary, seek recall of witnesses under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defence raised in the petition was factual and required evidence, which could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The inherent power cannot be used to short-circuit the statutory trial process or to test disputed defences at the threshold.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the facts shown, and the challenge to the summoning order was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to quash a Section 138 prosecution where the accused's defence is disputed and requires evidence, because such defences must be raised and proved before the trial court under the special procedure prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---