Inherent quashing jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed partnership facts in cheque dishonour complaint proceedings

Disputed questions of fact as to whether the accused were partners of the firm and were responsible for its business could not be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to quash complaint proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Where the complaint specifically alleged that the appellants were partners and in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business, the proper course was to allow those issues to be tested at trial. The High Court was therefore justified in declining to interfere in inherent jurisdiction, and the challenge to the complaint proceedings failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the appellants were not partners of the firm and were not responsible for its business.

Analysis: The allegation in the complaint specifically stated that the appellants were partners and were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Whether they were in fact partners and whether they were responsible for the business of the firm was a disputed question of fact. Such a controversy could not be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proper course was to permit the issue to be raised at trial.

Conclusion: The High Court was correct in declining to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the challenge to the complaint proceedings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions of fact relating to partnership status and responsibility for business cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal complaints.

---