Court denies accused's petition to halt proceedings, allows stolen cheque defense to be raised during trial

The court rejected the accused's petition to quash the proceedings in CC.No.105 of 2013, emphasizing that the defense regarding the stolen cheque could be raised and evaluated during the trial. The court found it inappropriate to halt the proceedings at that stage, noting that the trial had already commenced and the complainant's evidence had been closed. The court held that the truthfulness of the claim could be examined during the trial proceedings, rather than in a summary quash petition.

---

---

Issues: Accused's petition to quash proceedings in CC.No.105 of 2013, based on the claim that the cheque was stolen and misused by the wife of the complainant.

Analysis:
1. The accused filed a petition seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.105 of 2013, contending that the cheque in question was not issued by him but was stolen by the wife of the complainant. The accused claimed that a complaint had been lodged against the wife and the complainant for the theft of multiple cheques, including the one in question. The FIR related to the theft was registered on 19.12.2013, alleging that the theft occurred between August 2011 and March 2012.

2. The court, however, was not convinced by the accused's argument. It noted that a private complaint had been filed on 30.7.2012, stating that a specific amount was paid to the accused in cash, and a cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to an "Account Blocked situation." The complaint about the missing cheques was made much later, on 19.12.2013, after the statutory notice had been issued. The court found it unlikely that the accused, if innocent, would have delayed filing a complaint until after the statutory notice had been sent, despite the alleged theft occurring earlier.

3. The court emphasized that the accused's defense regarding the stolen cheque could be raised during the trial proceedings and that the truthfulness of the claim could be examined by the trial court. Given that the trial had already commenced, with the complainant's evidence being closed, the court deemed it inappropriate to quash the proceedings at that stage. The court held that the accused's defense could be presented and evaluated during the trial, rather than in a summary quash petition.

4. In conclusion, the court rejected the accused's petition to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that the defense regarding the stolen cheque could be raised and assessed during the trial proceedings. The court considered the stage of the trial, where the complainant's evidence had already been closed, as not suitable for quashing the ongoing proceedings against the accused.

---