The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction and the statutory presumption raised against the petitioner under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Quashing of criminal complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pertaining to dishonouring of cheques of Rupees seventeen lacs or so, is sought in this petition by the petitioner/accused by asserting that a civil litigation regarding the cheques in question is pending and the present case is not of dishonouring of cheque but is a case of 'stop payment' of the cheques and the cheques in question were not issued in discharge of any legal debt and infact these cheques have been misused, as the amount in these cheques was left blank.

2. Heard.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as drawn the attention of this Court to show that in the complaint the breakup of the amount of cheques in question is different than its breakup in the civil suit, which is pending. It is the case of the petitioner that he is no more all India distributor of M/S Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. and he has handed over the unsold stock in trade to the aforesaid enterprise and the initiation of the present proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.

4. The parameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court are quite limited. Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2008 SC 251, has held as under:

Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

5. The question raised herein before this Court are essentially questions of fact, which cannot be pre-judged at this stage and are required to be proved at trial. The benefit of the discrepancy of the breakup of the amount, as given in the complaint in question and in the civil suit is also a question of fact. Prima facie it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that if the complaint in question is taken to be true then no offence is made out.

6. In view of the aforesaid, no case for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court is made out, as the issuance of cheques in question raises a statutory presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner, which of course is rebuttable.

7. Resultantly, this petition and the pending application is dismissed in limine while expressing no opinion on the merits of this case.