Limitation and prima facie process in cheque dishonour complaints: challenge to summoning order failed for delay and merit-based objections.

Delay in challenging a summoning order under Section 482 CrPC was not condoned where the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for filing the application about three years late. The complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to be within limitation because the cheque was presented and dishonoured, notice was served, and the complaint was filed within one month of the cause of action arising on failure to pay within fifteen days of notice. At the stage of process, the Magistrate is concerned only with whether sufficient ground exists to proceed; disputed facts and evidence are matters for trial, so the prima facie case was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be allowed to quash the summoning order on the grounds of delay, limitation under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and absence of a prima facie case.

Analysis: The challenge to the summoning order was filed after about three years and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was shown. On merits, the complaint was found to be within limitation because the cheque was presented, dishonoured, notice was served, and the complaint was filed within one month after the cause of action accrued on failure to pay within fifteen days of service of notice. The Court also reiterated that, at the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate is concerned only with whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not whether conviction will follow, and that disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence are matters for trial.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed; the complaint was not barred by limitation and a prima facie case was made out against the applicant.

---