Quashing of cheque-bounce proceedings against a non-signatory director must await trial when involvement is disputed.

In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a non-signatory director's plea that he was not personally involved or in charge of the company's affairs could not be resolved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the complaint contained specific averments of his involvement. Such defences raised disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and were therefore matters for trial, especially in light of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 and the summary procedure contemplated by Sections 143 and 145, including affidavit evidence and recall of witnesses only on proper application. The quashing petition was not maintainable at the Section 482 stage and the trial was permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be invoked to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a director who was not a signatory to the cheque and disputes his role in the transaction.

Analysis: The complaint contained specific averments that the petitioner was one of the directors involved in the transaction and that the dealings with the complainant were not isolated or routine. The defence that he did not sign the cheques, was not personally involved, or was not in charge of the company's affairs raised disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. The statutory scheme under Sections 143 and 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contemplates summary procedure, use of affidavit evidence, and recall of witnesses only on a proper application disclosing the basis for cross-examination. The Court held that such defences are matters for trial, particularly in view of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the principle that facts within the special knowledge of the accused must be proved by him.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable at the Section 482 stage and the proceedings before the trial court were allowed to continue.

---