Quashing jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases is limited where a prima facie case exists, though compounding relief may still be granted.

In a cheque dishonour matter, the High Court declined to quash the complaint, summoning order and criminal proceedings because the materials disclosed a prima facie case and the objections raised involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for examination at the threshold. The Court applied the settled rule that inherent jurisdiction is not meant for a roving enquiry or to assess the merits of the prosecution pre-trial. At the same time, it granted limited time and interim protection to enable the accused to pursue compounding through compromise before the trial court in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint, summoning order, and criminal proceedings arising out of the cheque dishonour case were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the accused was entitled to time and protective directions to pursue compounding of the offence through compromise.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint, summoning order, and criminal proceedings arising out of the cheque dishonour case were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The allegations and material were found to disclose a prima facie case, and the contentions raised were held to involve disputed questions of fact that could not be examined in a pre-trial exercise. The settled law on summoning and quashing was applied, including the principle that inherent jurisdiction is not to be used for a roving enquiry or to assess the ultimate merit of the prosecution at the threshold. The case was held not to fall within the recognized categories warranting quashing, and no abuse of the court's process was found.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled to time and protective directions to pursue compounding of the offence through compromise.

Analysis: In view of the law encouraging early compounding in cheque dishonour matters and the emphasis on the compensatory character of the remedy, the Court accepted that the request had substance. Directions were issued permitting appearance before the court below, moving of a compromise application, and consideration of the matter in accordance with law within stipulated time limits. Protection against coercive steps was also directed for the specified period.

Conclusion: Limited relief was granted to enable consideration of compounding and to keep coercive measures in abeyance for the prescribed period.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were not quashed, but the accused was given a limited opportunity to seek compounding before the trial court with interim protection from coercive action for the specified duration.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is not exercised where the complaint discloses a prima facie case and the challenge turns on disputed facts, but limited procedural relief may still be granted to facilitate lawful compounding in cheque dishonour matters.

---