Section 258 CrPC cannot stop cheque dishonour proceedings absent full payment and compensatory satisfaction.

Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to stop proceedings in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where the cheque amount, interest and costs have not been paid. The court held that the stopping-of-proceedings principle recognised in the later Supreme Court decision is confined to the limited compensatory situation where payment has been made and the complainant stands compensated. It also stressed that precedent is binding only for its ratio decidendi and factual context. An attempt to invoke Section 258 on the basis of alleged absence of legally enforceable liability and a pending civil suit was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the power under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked to stop proceedings in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the cheque amount, interest and costs have not been paid and the complaint is challenged on maintainability.

Analysis: Section 258 of the Code applies to summons-cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court noted that the principle of stopping proceedings recognised in the later Supreme Court decision operates only in the limited situation contemplated there, namely when the cheque amount together with interest and costs assessed by the Court has been paid and the complainant stands compensated. The Court further held that the binding force of a precedent lies only in its ratio decidendi, which must be read in the factual context in which it was rendered. The earlier decision could not be extended to a case where the application under Section 258 was founded on alleged absence of legally enforceable liability and pendency of a civil suit, rather than on full payment as contemplated by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable on the facts, and the petitioner's request to stop the proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal to stop the cheque dishonour proceedings failed, and the complaint proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of stopping proceedings in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be invoked only within the limited compensatory framework recognised by law and cannot be extended to cases lacking such payment-based satisfaction.

---