Cheque prosecution and time-barred debt pleas require trial where facts are disputed and prima facie liability is disclosed.

A cheque prosecution could not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely on the plea that the underlying debt was time-barred, because the limitation question depended on disputed facts and required trial. A self cheque remained capable of attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the bearer feature was not struck off and the complaint otherwise disclosed a prima facie case. The orders taking cognizance and confirming process were therefore not shown to suffer from legal infirmity, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be quashed on the ground that the cheque was issued towards a time-barred debt. (ii) Whether a self cheque, where the word "bearer" was not struck off, attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iii) Whether the orders taking cognizance and confirming process suffered from error warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be quashed on the ground that the cheque was issued towards a time-barred debt.

Analysis: The limitation plea was treated as one requiring examination of facts and evidence. The question whether the underlying debt was time-barred could not be conclusively decided at the stage of cognizance or in inherent jurisdiction. The burden regarding non-existence of legally recoverable liability was held to be a matter for trial, and the complaint could not be quashed on that basis at the threshold.

Conclusion: The contention based on time-barred debt was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a self cheque, where the word "bearer" was not struck off, attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: A cheque styled as self cheque does not cease to attract penal consequences merely because it is described as self cheque, if the bearer feature remains intact and the cheque is in possession of the holder. The cheque holder was treated as a holder in due course for the purpose of maintaining proceedings, and the absence of endorsement did not negate the prima facie applicability of Section 138 at the process stage.

Conclusion: The self cheque was held to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (iii): Whether the orders taking cognizance and confirming process suffered from error warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Since the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and the disputed objections required trial, the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and the revisional order were found not to suffer from any legal infirmity. Questions of liability, limitation, and factual defence were left to be tested in trial.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the orders taking cognizance and confirming process.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed at the threshold, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of cognizance or inherent jurisdiction, a cheque prosecution cannot be quashed merely on a plea that the debt is time-barred, where the issue depends on disputed facts and the complaint otherwise discloses a prima facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---