Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint refused where prima facie case existed, but limited protection granted for compounding.

In a cheque dishonour complaint, the HC held that inherent jurisdiction to quash could not be exercised where the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and the defence raised disputed questions of fact requiring trial. The court declined to interfere with the summoning order, complaint, or proceedings because the matter did not fit recognised grounds for pre-trial quashing. At the same time, it accepted that cheque dishonour cases may justify early settlement and granted limited time and protection so the accused could appear before the trial court and seek compounding in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summoning order and proceedings in the cheque dishonour complaint deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the accused should be granted time and protection to seek compounding of the offence through compromise.

Issue (i): Whether the summoning order and proceedings in the cheque dishonour complaint deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The allegations raised disputed questions of fact and the material on record disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. The settled principles governing summoning and quashing require the court to avoid a roving enquiry or a pre-trial assessment of credibility at the threshold. The case did not fall within the recognised categories justifying interference under the inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the accused should be granted time and protection to seek compounding of the offence through compromise.

Analysis: In cheque dishonour matters, the compensatory element of the remedy may justify an opportunity for early settlement. Considering the settled approach encouraging compounding at an early stage, limited protection was considered appropriate so that the accused could move the court below for compromise and seek compounding in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The accused was given time to appear before the court below and pursue compounding, and coercive steps were restrained for the specified period.

Final Conclusion: The quashing relief was declined, but limited procedural protection was granted to facilitate an attempt at compromise before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings cannot be exercised where the complaint discloses a prima facie case and the defence depends on disputed factual questions, though limited protection may be granted to facilitate lawful compounding in cheque dishonour matters.

---