Disputed factual defence cannot justify quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 482; complaint must proceed.

Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of a disputed factual defence. The complaint had been quashed on the assumption that it was filed beyond time after dishonour, but that ground had not been raised in the quashing petition and turned on contested facts, including whether notice was issued only once and whether the complaint was within limitation. The Supreme Court held that such factual disputes could not be decided in quashing proceedings, and the complaint was required to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground of alleged delay and whether such a defence could be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint was quashed solely on the footing that it was not filed within time after dishonour of the cheque on the first occasion. The record showed that no such ground had been raised in the quashing petition. The question whether the statutory notice was issued only once and whether the complaint was within time depended on disputed facts. A defence involving disputed facts could not be made the basis for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

Conclusion: The quashing order was unsustainable and the complaint was required to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of a disputed factual defence.

---