Inherent quashing powers are limited in cheque dishonour cases, while early compromise may still be facilitated to support settlement.

Quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings under inherent criminal jurisdiction is confined to exceptional cases, such as absence of offence, legal bar, absurdity, or mala fide prosecution, and the court will not undertake a pre-trial appraisal of disputed facts or credibility. On the facts discussed, a prima facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding were found, so the complaint, summoning order and proceedings were not quashed. At the same time, the compensatory object of cheque dishonour law and the policy favouring early settlement justified granting time to pursue compounding through compromise, with the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for that limited period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint, summoning order and non-bailable warrant arising from the cheque dishonour case deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers. (ii) Whether the accused should be afforded an opportunity to seek compounding of the offence and the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for that purpose.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint, summoning order and non-bailable warrant arising from the cheque dishonour case deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers.

Analysis: The challenge to the proceedings was founded on disputed questions of fact. The material on record disclosed a prima facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding. The governing principles for quashing of criminal proceedings were noted to be confined to exceptional categories, including absence of any offence, absurdity, legal bar, or proceedings instituted maliciously. The case was found not to fall within those categories, and the Court declined to undertake a pre-trial appraisal of evidence or credibility.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the complaint, summoning order and proceedings was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused should be afforded an opportunity to seek compounding of the offence and the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for that purpose.

Analysis: In cheque dishonour matters, the compensatory object of the remedy and the policy of encouraging early settlement were recognised. Reliance was placed on the law favouring compounding at an early stage, and the Court considered it appropriate to grant time to explore compromise before the court below. To make that opportunity meaningful, protection against coercive process was directed during the specified period.

Conclusion: Time was granted to move an application for compounding through compromise, and the non-bailable warrant was ordered to remain in abeyance for the stated period.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was not invoked to annul the criminal proceedings, but limited procedural protection was granted to facilitate an attempted settlement in the cheque dishonour case.

Ratio Decidendi: Quashing under inherent criminal jurisdiction is justified only in exceptional cases fitting recognized categories, and in cheque dishonour matters the Court may simultaneously preserve the proceedings while facilitating an early compromise in furtherance of the compensatory object of the remedy.

---