Cheque dishonour prosecutions cannot be quashed on disputed closure of account; trial is needed to test the defence.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not quashed where the cheque was dishonoured with the remark that the account was closed. The drawer's plea that the account had been closed before the cheque date, and that the payee knew of it, was not clearly established from the record and required evidence. The Court held that such disputed facts could not be determined in quashing proceedings, and the statutory presumption in cheque cases continued to support prosecution at the trial stage. The summoning order was therefore upheld and the criminal complaint was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed on the plea that the cheque had been drawn on a closed account and that the disputed factual questions could not sustain prosecution.

Analysis: The pleadings and materials showed that the cheque had been issued by the petitioners and was dishonoured with the remark that the account was closed. The contention that the account had already been closed before the cheque date, and that the respondent was aware of that position, was not admitted on the record and required evidence. The letters relied upon by the petitioners did not disclose closure of the account in clear terms, and the bank memo also did not establish when the account had been closed. In such circumstances, the Court held that the disputed factual question could not be decided in a petition for quashing. The ingredients of Section 138 and the presumption arising in cheque cases, including the burden on the drawer to rebut the statutory presumption, supported continuation of the prosecution at the trial stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed, and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was permitted to proceed against the proprietor accused.

Final Conclusion: Interference was declined because the defence raised a disputed question of fact that required trial, and the criminal complaint was not found to be untenable at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where dishonour of a cheque is shown and the drawer raises a plea that the account was already closed, but the fact of prior closure is not conclusively established from the record, the matter cannot be quashed at the threshold and must be examined in trial.

---