Cheque dishonour complaints cannot be quashed on disputed facts when statutory presumption and trial-based defences remain open.

A cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed in inherent jurisdiction where the dispute depended on rival factual versions about issuance, encashment, return and alleged theft of the cheque. The court reasoned that such issues require evidence and cannot be resolved at the quashment stage, especially when the complaint discloses a prima facie liability attracting the statutory presumption in favour of the cheque holder, which the drawer may rebut only at trial. The cognizance order also was not liable to be quashed merely because it was not detailed, since a detailed order is not a precondition for issuance of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order taking cognizance could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of the petitioner's version that the cheque transaction was not towards a liability and that the dispute raised questions of fact.

Analysis: Quashing is justified only where the proceedings are demonstrably unjust or amount to abuse of process. The controversy raised by the petitioner turned on rival factual versions regarding issuance, encashment, return and alleged theft of the cheque, all of which required evidence and could not be resolved in proceedings for quashment. The complaint also disclosed a liability narrative sufficient to attract the statutory presumption attached to a cheque, which the drawer may rebut only in trial. The challenge to the cognizance order also failed, as a detailed order is not a condition precedent for issuance of process.

Conclusion: The complaint and the cognizance order were not liable to be quashed, and the petitioner was left to raise all available defences before the trial court.

Final Conclusion: Interference was declined because the dispute involved contested facts and the statutory presumption arising from the cheque could not be displaced at the quashment stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour prosecution cannot be quashed on disputed questions of fact where the complaint discloses a prima facie liability and the accused's defence is capable of being tested only at trial.

---