Time-barred debt plea cannot justify quashing where cheque dishonour complaint attracts a rebuttable presumption of liability.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not liable to quashing at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC merely because the cheque was alleged to have been issued for a time-barred debt. The complaint disclosed dishonour, statutory notice and non-payment, which attracted the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable liability. That presumption is rebuttable, but only through evidence. The question whether the underlying debt was time-barred could not be conclusively decided on the quashing material and was left for trial, as limitation in such matters may involve a mixed question of law and fact.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the plea that the cheque was issued towards a time-barred debt.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed issuance of the cheque, dishonour, notice and non-payment, which attracted the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. That presumption is rebuttable, but its rebuttal requires evidence. Whether the underlying debt had become time-barred was not capable of being conclusively determined at the quashing stage on the material then available and was a matter to be examined by the trial court after evidence. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner did not assist because the Supreme Court authority made it clear that limitation in such matters may involve a mixed question of law and fact.

Conclusion: The plea of time-barred debt could not justify quashing of the criminal proceedings at the threshold, and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

---