Post-notice payment in cheque dishonour cases does not justify quashing where timeliness and costs remain for trial court scrutiny.

Post-notice payment of a cheque amount does not by itself justify quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through Section 482 CrPC when questions remain about timeliness of payment, interest and costs. Because the complaints already disclosed the relevant dates of dishonour, notice, non-payment and institution, the Court found that triable issues still required determination. Relief based on payment and possible closure or discharge was left to the trial court under the summary procedure in Section 143 read with Section 258 CrPC, rather than being granted in inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the cheque amount was paid after expiry of the statutory period, and whether the petitioners should instead approach the trial court under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The payment relied upon by the petitioners was made after the statutory period for compliance under Section 138 had already expired, and the complaints themselves disclosed the dates of dishonour, notice, non-payment and institution of proceedings. The governing principle applied was that offences under Section 138 are primarily compensatory, and the Court may close proceedings and discharge the accused if the cheque amount together with assessed interest and costs is paid, but such consideration ordinarily lies before the trial court under the summary procedure contemplated by Section 143. The Court held that several triable issues remained, including whether the amounts were paid within time and whether interest and costs had been satisfied, and that these matters required adjudication by the Magistrate on an appropriate application under Section 143 read with Section 258.

Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted under Section 482, and the petitioners were relegated to seek appropriate relief before the trial court under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were not terminated on merits by the High Court, but the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory course before the Magistrate for consideration of closure or discharge on the basis of payment and attendant circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, post-notice payment of the cheque amount does not by itself justify quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where issues of timeliness, interest and costs remain for determination by the trial court under Section 143 read with Section 258.

---