Chequed dishonour proceedings survive quashing where disputed defences are extraneous, and the special statute overrides Code limits on magistrate powers.

Proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed on the basis of an alleged prior instruction not to present the cheque, because that disputed factual defence did not appear in the complaint or supporting documents and could not be accepted at the threshold in inherent-jurisdiction proceedings. The objection that the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked power to take cognizance or try the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure also failed, because section 142(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act contains a non obstante clause and expressly permits trial by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, overriding the general fine-limit in section 29(2) of the Code. The complaint was held maintainable before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings for dishonour of cheque could be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the basis of an alleged instruction not to present the cheque, which did not appear in the complaint or relied-upon documents; (ii) Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked power to take cognizance or try the offence because of the limit on fine under the Code of Criminal Procedure despite the special provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings for dishonour of cheque could be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the basis of an alleged instruction not to present the cheque, which did not appear in the complaint or relied-upon documents.

Analysis: The alleged instruction to withhold presentation of the cheque was not part of the complaint and was extraneous to the materials referred to in it. In proceedings for quashing under the inherent powers, such a disputed factual assertion could not be accepted to defeat the complaint at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plea for quashing on this ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked power to take cognizance or try the offence because of the limit on fine under the Code of Criminal Procedure despite the special provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is governed by the special statutory scheme in section 142(c), which begins with a non obstante clause overriding the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since that provision permits trial by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, the restriction under section 29(2) of the Code regarding the ordinary fine-limit of a Magistrate of the First Class did not control the prosecution.

Conclusion: The objection to cognizance and trial based on section 29(2) of the Code was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held maintainable before the Metropolitan Magistrate, and the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A special penal statute with a non obstante clause prevails over the general procedural limits in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a quashing petition cannot succeed on a disputed factual defence not disclosed by the complaint or its supporting material.

---