Cheque dishonour proceedings cannot be quashed on disputed facts when the complaint discloses an offence and evidence is needed.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court should not quash the complaint in inherent jurisdiction where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence and the accused relies on disputed factual defences. Allegations that the cheque was obtained by coercion and that later letters or receipts showed no subsisting liability could not be ined at the quashing stage, because those matters required evidence at trial. The statutory presumption that a cheque was issued towards a legal liability also weighed against premature interference. The petition for quashing was therefore rejected and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of disputed facts and defence material relied upon by the petitioners.

Analysis: The petition challenged the complaint and cognizance order on the premise that the cheque was allegedly obtained by coercion and that subsequent letters and receipts showed no subsisting liability. The disputed documents and the manner in which the cheque was said to have been issued raised factual controversies that could not be conclusively resolved in proceedings for quashing. The complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offence, and the question whether the cheque was issued in discharge of liability, or whether the defence version was correct, required evidence at trial. The existence of a statutory presumption regarding issuance of a cheque towards a legal liability further weighed against premature interference.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to quashing of the complaint or the impugned proceedings at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction of the Court was held inappropriate for deciding disputed factual defences in a cheque dishonour prosecution, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 discloses the offence and the defence rests on disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, the High Court should not quash the proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---