Summoning in cheque dishonour cases will not be quashed on disputed facts when a prima facie case is shown.

In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the High Court will not quash summoning or revisional orders where the complaint, supporting documents, and affidavit disclose a prima facie case and the subordinate courts have passed reasoned orders without jurisdictional error. Disputed objections about service of notice, whether the cheques arose from different transactions, and whether a joint trial was proper are factual matters for trial, not for interference at the summoning stage. The material also supported joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, while separate notices under Section 251 CrPC protected the accused's rights. Interference under supervisory or inherent jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the revisional order affirming summoning and notice in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether objections regarding service of notice, alleged involvement of different cheques from different transactions, and joint trial warranted quashing at the threshold.

Analysis: The petition invoked the High Court's supervisory and inherent jurisdiction, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only where material illegality, jurisdictional error, or abuse of process is shown. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, summons may be issued where the complaint, supporting documents, and affidavit disclose a prima facie case; the Court should not enter into disputed factual questions at the summoning stage. The record showed that the Magistrate had passed a reasoned summoning order after considering the complaint and accompanying material, and the revisional court had also found no legal infirmity. The objection that the cheques related to different transactions raised a factual controversy requiring trial. The finding that the cheques formed part of the same transaction also supported joint trial under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and separate notices under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 safeguarded the petitioners' rights.

Conclusion: Interference was unwarranted and the challenge to the summoning and revisional orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of summoning in a Section 138 complaint, the High Court will not quash proceedings on disputed questions of fact where the complaint and accompanying material disclose a prima facie case and the subordinate courts have passed reasoned orders without jurisdictional error.

---