Security cheque disputes and stop-payment instructions do not justify quashing complaint proceedings at the threshold.

Where the cheque is claimed to be a security cheque and payment was stopped on the drawer's instructions, the effect on liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on disputed questions of fact. Those issues, including whether a subsisting liability existed, must be tested on evidence before the trial court and cannot ordinarily justify quashing at the threshold under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. Mere stop-payment instructions were held insufficient, by themselves, to warrant interference with the complaint proceedings. The request to quash was therefore rejected, and discharge was not available at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint proceedings and the order rejecting the applicant's objection under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the cheques were security cheques and payment had been stopped on the applicant's instructions.

Analysis: The question whether the cheques were issued as security, whether there was a subsisting liability, and whether the stop-payment instruction took the case outside Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involved disputed questions of fact. Such questions were required to be examined on evidence before the trial court. At the quashing stage, the mere fact that payment was stopped was not considered sufficient to justify discharge or interference with the complaint proceedings. The Court found no illegality, irregularity, incorrectness, impropriety, or abuse of process warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The request for quashing was rejected and the applicant was not entitled to be discharged at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the effect of a stop-payment instruction and the nature of the cheque as security depend on evidence and disputed facts, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be used to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the threshold.

---