Cheque dishonour complaints cannot be quashed on disputed facts where statutory presumptions remain and defence must go to trial.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed in inherent jurisdiction where the accused raised disputed factual pleas about cheque misuse, absence of legally enforceable liability, and exclusion under a memorandum of understanding. The court held that such objections require evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold in a mini trial. Statutory presumptions under Section 139, read with Section 118(a), continue to operate unless rebutted in trial, and a defence version alone is insufficient to displace them. The record also did not support the claims of absence of notice or improper recording of the complainant's statement. The petition therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of disputed factual pleas regarding liability, misuse of security cheques, and alleged non-compliance with notice and oath requirements.

Analysis: The challenge rested primarily on factual assertions that the cheques were issued as security, that no legally enforceable liability existed, and that the memorandum of understanding excluded liability. These objections were denied by the complainant and therefore raised disputed questions of fact. Such issues require evidence and cannot be adjudicated in a petition invoking inherent powers. The statutory presumption arising on issuance of cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with the rebuttable presumption under Section 118(a), cannot be displaced at the threshold merely on the basis of a defence version. The contention regarding absence of notice and the allegation that the complainant's statement was not recorded on oath were found to be incorrect on the record.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be quashed on the factual grounds urged, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to conduct a mini trial or to quash a Section 138 complaint on disputed questions of fact when statutory presumptions continue to operate and the defence is required to be established in trial.

---