Pre-trial defence in cheque dishonour cases cannot defeat prosecution; cognizance orders are not reviewable by the Magistrate.

In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a defence that the cheque and bank account belonged to the applicant's father, while the applicant's signatures were undisputed, was held to be a matter for trial and not a basis for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The Court stated that such a pre-trial defence could not be finally adjudicated at the quashing stage, leaving the applicant free to prove it before the trial court. It also held that a Magistrate cannot review its own order taking cognizance or issuing summons, and the revisional court could not direct reconsideration on the basis of the accused's defence. The complaint was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant could seek quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque and bank account belonged to his father and not to him, when his signatures on the cheque were not disputed. (ii) Whether the Magistrate could reconsider the order taking cognizance after remand in view of the bar against review of its own order.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant could seek quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque and bank account belonged to his father and not to him, when his signatures on the cheque were not disputed.

Analysis: At the stage of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court found that the applicant had not disputed his signatures on the cheque. The account and cheque book were shown to be of the applicant's father, and the applicant had access to them. The Court held that the defence raised by the applicant went to the merits of the complaint and could not be finally adjudicated at the pre-trial stage. The applicant was left free to establish his defence before the trial court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the maintainability of the complaint failed, and the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could not be quashed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could reconsider the order taking cognizance after remand in view of the bar against review of its own order.

Analysis: The Court held that before issuance of summons, the accused has no right to be heard on the merits of the defence. It further held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review its own order taking cognizance, and the revisional court had erred in directing reconsideration on the basis of the applicant's defence. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that such an order is not reviewable by the Magistrate.

Conclusion: The Magistrate rightly declined to revisit the cognizance order, and the revisional order interfering with that view was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected, the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was allowed to continue, and the trial court was directed to conclude the complaint expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-summoning defence cannot ordinarily be examined to defeat a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a Magistrate cannot review its own order taking cognizance or issuance of summons.

---