2026 (3) TMI 584 - HC - Indian Laws

Inherent jurisdiction cannot quash a cheque-bounce complaint where disputed facts and document authenticity require trial.

Inherent jurisdiction under the High Court to quash criminal proceedings was considered; the Court applied the settled principle that such power is to be ... Negotiable Instruments Act - dishonour of cheque - essential ingredient of Section 138 - Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - abuse of process - Misuse of a blank cheque - forgery/fabrication of underlying documents, including an MOU - unaccounted transaction. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be exercised sparingly - Allegations of forgery and misuse of signed instruments require trial adjudication, not quashing - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the Complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. The Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or evaluate disputed facts or defense evidence, at this stage. The Court applied the established principle that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and not to conduct a mini-trial. Here the issuance of the cheque and the signatures thereon were not disputed, and the petitioner's defence rested on allegations that the cheque and related documents were forged or that a blank signed instrument was misused. Those factual and evidentiary contentions require testing at trial; they are not matters for summary determination on a quashing petition. Earlier attempts to obtain quashing or discharge had been dismissed, and the Trial Court's and revisional court's non-suit of the petitioner on preliminary applications indicated that the disputed defenses must be addressed by evidence in the trial court. On this basis the petition for quashing was held to lack merit. [Paras 46, 47, 48, 51, 52] Petition for quashing of the Section 138 NI Act complaint dismissed; allegations of forgery and misuse to be adjudicated at trial. Final Conclusion: The High Court refused to quash the criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that disputed allegations of forgery and misuse of signed instruments must be decided in the trial court. Issues: Whether the Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (CC No.11274/2016) should be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Analysis: The Court noted the settled principle that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly to quash proceedings which, on their face, disclose no offence or where continuation would amount to abuse of process; the Court must not conduct a mini trial at the quashing stage. The material shows that the issuance of the cheque and the signatures thereon are not disputed. The petitioner's defence rests on allegations of misuse of a blank cheque and forgery/fabrication of underlying documents, including an MOU; those contentions, however, involve factual disputes and evidentiary questions which require trial. The Court observed previous applications for quashing and discharge were dismissed, and that contested issues such as authenticity of documents, FSL findings, and the veracity of antecedent transactions cannot be resolved in a Section 482 petition without impinging on the trial court's role. Given these circumstances, the petition does not establish that the complaint on its face discloses no offence or that continuation would be an abuse of process.Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is dismissed; the complaint stands and the petitioner is not entitled to quashment at this stage.