Application to Quash Summoning Order Denied in N.I. Act Case

The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order in a criminal complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It held that there was no abuse of process of law and refused to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures, avoiding abuse of process, and limiting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

---

---

Issues:
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning order in a criminal complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Quashing Summoning Order: The applicant sought to quash the summoning order based on the argument that the impugned cheque was not against any liability but was issued as security. The applicant contended that the complainant failed to explain the source of income, as mandated by the Apex Court in Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa. The applicant claimed that the summoning order was unjustified and an abuse of process of law by the trial and revisional courts.

2. Prima Facie Grounds for Issuing Process: The court analyzed the facts and evidence to determine if there were prima facie grounds for issuing process against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The court found that a cheque issued by the applicant was dishonored, a notice of demand was issued, and the complaint was filed within the stipulated period. The Magistrate, after examination and enquiry, summoned the applicant based on the evidence collected, establishing a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court discussed the scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends of justice. It cited various judgments emphasizing that this power should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution. The court clarified that the High Court should not embark on an inquiry into the reliability of evidence at this stage, as it is the function of the trial court. The court highlighted that the inherent power is not to be used to circumvent the prescribed procedure or delay the trial.

4. Prevention of Abuse of Process of Court: The court referred to judgments stating that the High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process only when the complaint does not disclose any offense or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. It reiterated that the High Court should not inquire into the likelihood of the allegations being established by evidence. The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is limited by the established legal principles.

5. Dismissal of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court rejected the application to quash the summoning order, stating that there was no abuse of process of law in the decisions made by the Magistrate Court and the revisional court. The court held that there was no ground for interference and dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., refusing to quash the summoning order and the proceedings of the complaint case.

In conclusion, the court upheld the summoning order in the criminal complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures, avoiding abuse of process, and limiting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

---