Quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings is limited where defences turn on disputed facts and evidence.

Criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot ordinarily be quashed under section 482 CrPC on the basis of disputed factual defences, including a claim that the cheque was issued only as security rather than in discharge of a legally recoverable debt. Such contentions require appreciation of evidence and are for the trial court, unless the accused produces sterling and impeccable material that conclusively destroys the prosecution case without the need for trial. As the material relied on did not meet that threshold, quashing of the summoning order and proceedings was refused, leaving the accused to pursue the available defences before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of the accused's factual defences, including the plea that the cheque was issued only as security and not in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.

Analysis: The challenge raised depended on disputed facts arising from the underlying transactions between the parties and the defence taken before the trial court. Such defences require appreciation of evidence and cannot ordinarily be examined in a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The limited quashing jurisdiction may be exercised only where the accused produces material of sterling and impeccable quality that conclusively displaces the prosecution case and rules out the accusations without the need for evidence. The material placed in support of the petition did not satisfy that standard.

Conclusion: The request to quash the summoning order and the criminal proceedings was rejected, and the petitioner was left to raise his available defences before the trial court.

---