Cheque dishonour notice and complaint held valid; disputed defences must be tried, not decided at quashing stage.

A demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid because, read as a whole, it clearly required payment of the cheque amount within the statutory time, even without detailing every aspect of the underlying debt. The complaint was also found not liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, since it contained the foundational averments for a cheque dishonour prosecution and the accused's defences, including alleged theft of the cheque, absence of liability, and challenge to financial capacity, raised disputed factual questions unsuitable for quashing. The statutory presumption under Section 139 operated at that stage, so the petition challenging the complaint failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was defective for not making a valid demand for the cheque amount, and (ii) whether the complaint and proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds urged by the accused.

Issue (i): whether the demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was defective for not making a valid demand for the cheque amount.

Analysis: Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 requires a written demand for the amount covered by the cheque within the prescribed time. The notice has to be read as a whole and not in a hyper-technical manner. Where the notice clearly states that the drawer is bound to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated time, the statutory requirement is satisfied, even if the notice does not narrate every aspect of the underlying debt.

Conclusion: The demand notice was valid and satisfied the requirement of Section 138.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint and proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds urged by the accused.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 must contain the foundational averments regarding drawing of the cheque, dishonour, timely presentation, issuance of demand notice, and failure to pay within the statutory period. The complaint contained those averments. At the quashing stage, the Court cannot enter into disputed questions of fact or test the defence version regarding theft of the cheque, absence of liability, or the complainant's financial capacity. The statutory presumption under Section 139 also operates in favour of the complainant at this stage.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the cheque dishonour complaint failed, as the statutory notice was found to be sufficient and the remaining objections required trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour complaint cannot be quashed where the demand notice, read as a whole, clearly calls upon the drawer to pay the cheque amount and the complaint contains the foundational averments required under Section 138, because disputed factual defences must be tried and not decided at the quashing stage.

---