Section 482 CrPC cannot quash a Section 138 complaint where the defence needs evidence and statutory ingredients are prima facie made out.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to test a defence that depends on evidence where the ingredients of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution are prima facie satisfied. The cheque was presented within validity, dishonoured, and a demand notice was issued; the alleged defect in the notice was unsupported by any concrete explanation and did not justify quashing. The Court held that the petitioners' objections, including absence of cause of action, had to be examined by the trial court, where the accused could raise defences, seek recall of witnesses, and lead evidence under the applicable trial framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of an allegedly defective legal notice and absence of a cause of action.

Analysis: The petition challenged the summoning order on the basis that the statutory requirements for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had not been satisfied. The record showed that the cheque had been presented within its validity period, it was dishonoured, and a demand notice was thereafter issued. The Court held that the plea of defect in the notice was unsupported by any concrete explanation and did not, by itself, justify interference. It further held that the defence raised by the petitioners required evidentiary examination and could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also noted that the trial framework under Sections 251 and 263(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sections 143 and 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provided the accused an opportunity to disclose the defence before the trial court, seek recall of witnesses if necessary, and lead defence evidence in accordance with law. The summoning court had already recorded a prima facie view that the statutory ingredients were met and that the partners could be proceeded against.

Conclusion: The challenge to the complaint and summoning order failed, and quashing was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not disclose any ground warranting interference at the pre-trial stage, and the accused were left to pursue their defences before the trial court in the manner prescribed by law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to assess a defence that requires evidence where the statutory ingredients of a Section 138 prosecution are prima facie made out and the accused has an adequate opportunity to raise that defence before the trial court.

---