Section 482 CrPC cannot quash a cheque dishonour complaint on disputed defences when a prima facie offence is shown.

Section 482 CrPC relief was declined where the challenge to a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint depended on disputed factual defences, including cheque validity, bank merger and alleged absence of liability. The court held that, at the quashing stage, only a prima facie case is examined and defence material cannot be weighed when the record discloses an offence and no abuse of process on its face. The cognizance and summoning order was also upheld because the magistrate had applied mind to the materials and the order was not mechanical. Interim protection was granted to enable appearance and seek bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint 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; (ii) Whether the cognizance and summoning order suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint 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.

Analysis: The challenge rested on disputed questions of fact, including the alleged invalidity of the cheque, the merger of the bank, and the absence of liability. At the stage of quashing, only a prima facie case is to be examined, and contested defence material cannot be adjudicated. The record did not disclose a situation where no offence was made out, nor did it establish abuse of process on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing the proceedings was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the cognizance and summoning order suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference.

Analysis: The summoning court had applied its mind to the materials before it and formed an opinion that the matter was fit to proceed. The order was not a mechanical or pro forma exercise, and no prejudice caused by any legal error was shown. The order of cognizance and summons was, therefore, found to be valid.

Conclusion: The cognizance and summoning order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: Interference was declined, while protection was granted to enable the applicant to appear and seek bail in accordance with law, with interim restraint on coercive action for one month.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of disputed defence versions when a prima facie offence is disclosed and the summoning order reflects application of mind to the materials on record.

---