Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to test disputed facts where a complaint shows prima facie offence ingredients.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to weigh evidence or resolve disputed facts at the pre-trial stage. Where a complaint alleges cheque issuance, dishonour, service of notice, and non-payment, and the complainant's Section 200 Cr.P.C. statement supports initiation, the complaint discloses the basic factual foundation and prima facie ingredients of the offence. A merits-based challenge or denial of allegations does not justify quashing when the complaint on its face contains the essential averments. On that basis, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was declined and the request to quash was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and summoning order should be quashed in exercise of inherent powers, and whether the complaint disclosed sufficient factual foundation and prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences.

Analysis: The complaint alleged issuance of a cheque, its dishonour, service of notice, and non-payment, and the complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. supported the initiation of proceedings. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and cannot be invoked to assess the truthfulness of the allegations or to undertake appreciation of evidence at a stage where trial has not commenced. Where the complaint lays the basic factual foundation for the alleged offences, the proceeding cannot be quashed merely because the accused disputes the allegations or seeks a merits-based examination.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a prima facie case and no ground was made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the request to quash was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to weigh evidence or test disputed facts where the complaint, on its face, contains the essential allegations constituting the offence.

---