Inchoate cheques and disputed liability did not justify quashing the summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Summoning under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not quashed because the cheques arose from admitted commercial dealings and acknowledged liability. Section 20 supported prima facie authority for completion of an inchoate or undated cheque, so later filling of the instrument did not by itself defeat enforceability. The pleas that the cheques were time-barred or not issued for a legally enforceable debt were treated as fact-linked questions requiring examination of the parties' correspondence and conduct. At the Section 482 CrPC stage, those disputed issues were found unsuitable for interference, and the summoning order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed on the ground that the cheques were time-barred or otherwise not issued in respect of a legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The petition challenged the summoning order in a prosecution under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court noted that the cheques were issued in the backdrop of admitted commercial arrangements and subsequent acknowledgments of outstanding liability. It relied on Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to hold that a signer of an inchoate or undated cheque gives prima facie authority to the holder to complete the instrument, and that the question whether the cheques were filled later did not, by itself, negate liability. The Court also treated the plea of good faith and limitation as matters intertwined with facts and the parties' correspondence, observing that the petitioners' own reply acknowledged issuance of the cheques in furtherance of a bona fide intent to repay. These questions were held to be inappropriate for determination in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the summoning stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed and the petition was held not fit for quashing.

---