Cheque dishonour complaints are not quashed on disputed facts, but limited time for compounding and interim protection may be granted.

In cheque dishonour proceedings, inherent jurisdiction will not be used to quash a complaint and summoning order where the challenge turns on disputed questions of fact, the material discloses a prima facie case, and the matter does not fall within recognised quashing categories. The complaint was therefore not quashed. At the same time, the court noted the compensatory object of cheque dishonour law and granted the accused a limited, time-bound opportunity to seek compromise and compounding before the trial court, with coercive steps kept in abeyance for that period. Limited interim protection was thus allowed to facilitate settlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint case and summoning order arising from the cheque dishonour prosecution were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers; (ii) whether the accused was entitled to a limited opportunity to seek compounding of the offence and protection from coercive steps meanwhile.

Issue (i): whether the complaint case and summoning order arising from the cheque dishonour prosecution were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers.

Analysis: The challenge to the prosecution rested on disputed questions of fact and required appraisal of the evidentiary worth of the material, which was not appropriate at the pre-trial stage. The complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case, and the matter did not fall within the recognised categories warranting quashing of criminal proceedings. The inherent jurisdiction is not to be used for a roving enquiry into contested factual issues or to foreclose trial where sufficient grounds to proceed exist.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the accused was entitled to a limited opportunity to seek compounding of the offence and protection from coercive steps meanwhile.

Analysis: In prosecutions under the cheque dishonour provision, the compensatory object of the remedy and the desirability of early settlement justify facilitating compounding at an early stage. On that basis, limited time was granted to the accused to move the trial court for compromise and compounding, with a direction that coercive action remain in abeyance for the specified period and that the trial court act in accordance with the governing law.

Conclusion: Limited relief for settlement and protection from coercive measures was granted.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was not quashed, but the accused was given a time-bound opportunity to pursue compounding before the trial court with interim protection from coercive steps.

Ratio Decidendi: In a proceeding under inherent jurisdiction, criminal prosecution should not be quashed on disputed questions of fact where the complaint discloses a prima facie case and the matter does not fall within recognised quashing categories; in cheque dishonour matters, a limited opportunity for compounding may be granted to advance the compensatory object of the law.

---