Prima facie scrutiny governs cheque dishonour prosecutions, and disputed factual defences cannot defeat proceedings at the discharge stage.

Disputed objections as to timely presentation of the cheque and other factual defences in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution are matters for trial, not for determination while considering interference under Section 482 CrPC. At the stage of summoning or rejection of discharge, the court is concerned only with whether a prima facie case exists. As the impugned order disclosed no legal infirmity, no inherent jurisdictional interference was warranted. The challenge to the rejection of discharge therefore failed, and the prosecution was left to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the discharge application in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act warranted interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The controversy raised regarding presentation of the cheque within time and other factual objections involved disputed questions of fact. Such objections were held to be matters for trial and not for determination at the stage of considering interference with the summoning order or rejection of discharge. At that stage, only a prima facie case was required to be seen, and the impugned order refusing to interfere with the proceedings did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order rejecting the discharge application failed, and no interference was warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revision was rejected, and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was left to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed factual objections in a cheque dishonour prosecution cannot be examined at the stage of inherent jurisdiction when only a prima facie case is to be considered.

---