Cheque dishonour prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold where liability and defences raise factual disputes.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that disputed defences could not justify quashing at the Section 482 stage. The petitioner admitted the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, and its return unpaid for insufficiency of funds, while the pleas based on a partition deed and alleged misuse of blank cheques raised factual disputes requiring trial. At the quashing stage, the Court would not examine the defence or displace the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant. The petition for quashing was therefore not maintainable on the facts presented, and the criminal proceedings were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitioner admitted the loan transaction and did not dispute that the cheque was issued and returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. The defence that a partition deed shifted the liability to another family member, and that blank cheques had been misused, raised disputed factual questions that required examination in the trial. At the stage of quashing, the Court would not assess the defence or displace the statutory presumption that may arise in favour of the complainant.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the facts placed before the Court and the criminal proceedings were not liable to be interfered with.

---