Cheque dishonour quashing is unavailable where disputed defences need evidence and must be tried before the magistrate.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of disputed defences that require evidence. The statutory scheme under Sections 118, 139, 143, 145 and 146 places the burden on the accused to raise and establish the defence before the trial court, and the High Court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to resolve contested questions of fact. Where the defence rests on alleged payment or absence of liability and needs oral and documentary proof, it is not suitable for adjudication at the quashing stage. The defence pleas must be tried by the magistrate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of the accused on the basis of disputed defences requiring evidence.

Analysis: The petitions arose from cheque dishonour complaints where notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been served, plea of defence had been recorded, and an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had already been allowed. The statutory scheme of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly Sections 142 to 147, creates a special code for speedy trial of cheque dishonour cases. The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, together with Sections 143, 145 and 146, require the accused to disclose and establish his defence before the trial court. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to evaluate disputed questions of fact or to displace the prosecution case unless the defence material is of sterling and impeccable quality and is capable of conclusively demolishing the accusations without evidence. The defences asserted, including alleged payment and absence of liability, required oral and documentary proof and were not fit for adjudication in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted; the defence pleas had to be tried before the magistrate and the petitions failed.

---