Quashing under inherent jurisdiction fails where disputed defence material and director resignation raise factual issues for trial.

In quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the court should not assess disputed defence material or conduct a roving enquiry where the complaint and supporting material prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence and the accused's involvement. A director's plea of prior resignation will not justify quashing under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the complaint alleges responsibility for the company's business and the resignation claim itself raises factual disputes requiring trial. The proceeding was therefore permitted to continue, and the quash petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused could rely on disputed defence material to seek quashing of a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether petitioner no. 3 could avoid criminal liability on the plea that he had resigned as director before the cheques were issued and dishonoured.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused could rely on disputed defence material to seek quashing of a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and the Court is not to conduct a roving enquiry or appreciate defence evidence at the threshold. Where the complaint, read with supporting material, prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offence and the accused's involvement, disputed questions are to be tested at trial.

Conclusion: The plea for quashing on the basis of defence material was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether petitioner no. 3 could avoid criminal liability on the plea that he had resigned as director before the cheques were issued and dishonoured.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that all petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, and the record relied upon by the complainant indicated that petitioner no. 3 continued to be shown as a director around the relevant period. The conflicting resignation documents raised a factual dispute that could not be at the quashing stage and required evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Petitioner no. 3's defence of prior resignation did not warrant quashing of the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceeding under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was allowed to continue, and the quash petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to quash a complaint where the allegations and accompanying materials prima facie show the accused's responsibility for the offence and the defence rests on disputed facts requiring trial.

---