Quashing of Section 138 complaint on disputed repayment plea is impermissible where facts require trial evidence.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a disputed plea that the cheque amount was already repaid. Where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence and the defence depends on contested facts, such questions must be examined through evidence at trial rather than in inherent jurisdiction. The accused must establish the repayment defence before the trial court, and the quashing petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of the disputed plea that the cheque amount had already been repaid.

Analysis: The petition raised a factual controversy as to whether the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques had been fully settled by subsequent payments or whether those later cheques related to different liabilities. The complaint disclosed the ingredients necessary for an offence under Section 138, and the defence set up by the petitioner involved appreciation of disputed facts and evidence. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such disputed factual questions cannot be determined, and the accused must establish the defence before the trial court.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the disputed factual plea and was rejected.

---