Prima facie forgery and fraud allegations can defeat quashing when non-production of a cheque is not supported by material.

A private complaint alleging forgery and fraud was not quashed under inherent powers because the complaint and reply notice disclosed a prima facie dispute over issuance and ownership of the cheque. The accused's claim that the cheque had been returned and the amount repaid was unsupported by material at the quashing stage, and non-production of the cheque alone did not justify rejection of the complaint. Where the pleadings and supporting material showed a prima facie case, and no compelling material established abuse of process, the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the private complaint was liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers on the ground that the cheque was allegedly returned to the complainant and not produced, and whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of the proceedings.

Analysis: The complaint and the reply notice showed a clear dispute as to the very issuance and ownership of the instrument, with the complainant asserting that the cheque was not issued by him and that his signature had been forged. At the stage of quashing, there was no material to prove the petitioner's assertion that the cheque amount had been paid back and the cheque collected by the complainant. In such a situation, non-production of the cheque by itself did not justify rejection of the complaint, particularly when allegations of forgery and fraud were specifically pleaded and supported by material placed before the court. The existence of a prima facie case and the absence of any compelling ground to hold that the proceedings were an abuse of process justified refusal to interfere.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint alleges forgery and fraud and discloses a prima facie case, the inherent jurisdiction to quash will not be exercised merely because the accused asserts return of the instrument or complains of its non-production, unless such defence is supported by material showing abuse of process.

---