Incomplete cheque and security-cheque defences require evidence; quashing was refused under cheque dishonour law.

Filling in the date on an undated cheque signed and delivered by the drawer did not, on the stated facts, amount to a material alteration invalidating the instrument, because Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits completion of an incomplete negotiable instrument by the holder; the dispute over authority to insert the date was factual and could not be resolved without evidence, so quashing was refused on that ground. The plea that the cheque was issued only as security also could not be accepted at the quashing stage, because the complaint and pre-summoning material disclosed an asserted liability arising from the underlying transaction, and whether any legally enforceable debt existed required trial evidence rather than summary rejection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether filling in the date on an undated cheque issued by the drawer amounted to material alteration so as to invalidate the cheque and defeat a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the plea that the cheque was issued as security could be accepted at the stage of quashing to hold that no legally enforceable debt or liability was disclosed.

Issue (i): Whether filling in the date on an undated cheque issued by the drawer amounted to material alteration so as to invalidate the cheque and defeat a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The drawer having signed and delivered an undated cheque attracted the operation of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which recognises authority in the holder to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument. The assertion that no authority existed to fill in the date raised a factual controversy that could not be resolved without evidence. The cited authorities treating such filling in as invalid were not accepted in view of the statutory scheme and the need to read the cheque law with Section 20.

Conclusion: The plea of material alteration failed and the prosecution could not be quashed on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea that the cheque was issued as security could be accepted at the stage of quashing to hold that no legally enforceable debt or liability was disclosed.

Analysis: The complaint and pre-summoning material asserted liability arising from the underlying transaction, and that factual foundation could not be discarded in a quashing proceeding. Whether the cheque was only a security instrument and whether any liability existed were matters requiring evidence at trial rather than summary determination under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The security-cheque defence was rejected at the quashing stage.

Final Conclusion: The petition to quash the complaint was not sustainable, and the criminal prosecution was left to proceed in accordance with law.

---