Quashing of cheque dishonour complaints is improper where retirement from a partnership firm is disputed and needs trial evidence.

Specific allegations that the accused was in charge of a partnership firm and responsible for its affairs, coupled with dishonoured cheques issued towards rent liability, were sufficient to resist quashing at the initial stage. A claimed retirement deed and related public notice were not unimpeachable or incontrovertible material, so their genuineness and effect had to be tested at trial rather than under inherent jurisdiction. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the complaints and summoning order, and the proceedings were restored for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal complaints and summoning order against the respondent on the basis of a claimed retirement from the partnership firm before the cheques were issued.

Analysis: The complaints alleged that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the partnership firm and that the dishonoured cheques had been issued towards discharge of rent liability. The respondent relied on a retirement deed said to have been executed earlier, but the Court held that the effect and genuineness of such a deed, and the accompanying public notice, could not be treated as conclusive at the quashing stage. Where specific allegations exist and the material relied upon is not unimpeachable or incontrovertible, the question whether the respondent had ceased to be connected with the firm is a matter for trial and evidence, not for summary rejection under the inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings against the respondent; the complaints and summoning order were restored for trial.

---