Quashing of Section 138 proceedings rejected where disputed notice-service facts required trial court examination, not Section 482 review.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint merely because the complaint omitted the date of service of notice. The alleged prematurity of the complaint depended on disputed facts that were for the trial court to examine, and the High Court confined itself to a prima facie assessment at the threshold stage. As a result, the request to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings was rejected, while the accused was left free to raise the defence before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the complaint did not mention the date of service of notice and was allegedly premature.

Analysis: The absence of the date of service of notice in the complaint did not, by itself, justify quashing at the inherent jurisdiction stage. The question whether the complaint was premature depended on factual matters that were open to examination by the trial court. At this stage, only a prima facie case was to be seen, and disputed defences of the accused could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant was left at liberty to raise such pleas before the trial court in appropriate proceedings.

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

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were permitted to continue, while limited interim protection was granted for a short period to enable the applicant to appear and seek bail before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to quash proceedings on the basis of disputed factual defences when a prima facie offence is disclosed.

---