Section 138 cheque complaint cannot be quashed on disputed factual defences; liability claims must be tried.

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court at the summoning stage must see whether the complaint and supporting material broadly disclose the statutory ingredients. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not ordinarily used to decide disputed questions of fact or test factual defences such as theft, misuse of blank signed cheques, lack of consideration, or absence of legally enforceable debt. Because the complaint clearly asserted that the cheques were issued in discharge of liability, that assertion had to be tested at trial. The quashing petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the plea that the cheques were issued without consideration and that no legally enforceable debt existed, the dispute turning on alleged theft or misuse of blank signed cheques and other factual defences.

Analysis: For a complaint under Section 138, the court at the summoning stage is required to see whether the complaint and supporting material broadly disclose the statutory ingredients. The inherent power under Section 482 is wide but is ordinarily not exercised to decide disputed questions of fact or to test the accused's defences. Where the complaint contains a clear assertion that the cheques were issued towards discharge of liability, the truthfulness of that assertion is a matter for trial and cannot be pre-judged in quashing proceedings. Allegations of loss, theft, misuse, or absence of liability are factual defences which require evidence.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed the ingredients of Section 138, and the disputed factual defences did not justify quashing under Section 482. The petition was rejected.

---