Disputed factual defences in cheque dishonour cases cannot usually justify quashing at the inherent jurisdiction stage.

Disputed factual defences in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, including whether a cheque was conditional and whether statutory dues were fully paid, cannot ordinarily be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court will not conduct a trial-like appraisal of contested evidence at the quashing stage, so the complaint and connected proceedings were allowed to continue. A challenge to the summoning order on the ground of non-application of mind also failed, because a summoning order need not be a detailed reasoned order and the alleged factual error did not warrant interference in inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of a disputed defence that the cheque was conditional and that statutory dues were not fully paid; (ii) whether the summoning order could be interfered with on the ground of non-application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of a disputed defence that the cheque was conditional and that statutory dues were not fully paid.

Analysis: The controversy turned on competing versions regarding compliance with the contractual obligation to clear statutory dues before presentation of the cheque. The complainant asserted that the service tax obligations had been fulfilled and challans were supplied, while the petitioner denied full compliance. Such a defence raised a disputed question of fact requiring evidence. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court does not evaluate contested factual claims or undertake a trial-like appreciation of evidence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The request to quash the complaint and the connected proceedings was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the summoning order could be interfered with on the ground of non-application of mind.

Analysis: The challenge to the summoning order was based on the submission that it was not a detailed order and that an incorrect factual aspect was noted. A summoning order is not required to be a detailed reasoned order, and this contention did not justify interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for interference at the quashing stage because it rested on disputed factual defences, and the criminal complaint was left to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed factual defences in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and must ordinarily be tested at trial.

---