Cheque alteration disputes and reversal of credited amount did not warrant quashing of Section 138 proceedings at the threshold.

Alleged alteration in a signed cheque could not justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC because who made the alteration was a disputed question of fact requiring evidence, and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted at that stage. Reversal of an initially credited cheque amount did not negate liability where the amount ultimately remained unpaid and statutory notice was not complied with, so the ingredients of Section 138 were disclosed. Proceedings against the non-signatory petitioner also were not quashed, as the complaint contained specific allegations linking him to the transaction and issuance of the cheque from a joint account. The summoning order and complaint were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged material alteration in the cheque could justify quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the reversal of the credited cheque amount could negate the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (iii) whether proceedings could be quashed against the non-signatory petitioner for want of specific allegations and material particulars.

Issue (i): whether the alleged material alteration in the cheque could justify quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Analysis: The dispute as to who made the alteration in the cheque was a disputed question of fact. The Court held that such controversy could not be resolved in proceedings under Section 482, especially when the defence required evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The principle that a signed cheque remains enforceable unless the drawer rebuts the presumption was applied.

Conclusion: The plea based on Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not warrant quashing.

Issue (ii): whether the reversal of the credited cheque amount could negate the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Analysis: The Court accepted the complainant's case that the amount, though initially credited, was later reversed, with the effect that the cheque amount remained unpaid. In such circumstances, and since payment was not made within the statutory time after demand, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 were found to be present.

Conclusion: The contention that no offence under Section 138 was made out was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether proceedings could be quashed against the non-signatory petitioner for want of specific allegations and material particulars

Analysis: The Court noted that the lease transaction was entered into by the non-signatory petitioner, the cheque was issued from a jointly held account, and the complaint specifically alleged that the dealings were with him and that he had re-handed over the altered cheque. On these allegations, the absence of his signature alone was insufficient to quash the proceedings at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge to the proceedings against the non-signatory petitioner failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no ground to interfere with the summoning order or the complaint, as the objections raised by the petitioners depended on disputed facts to be tested in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, disputed questions of fact and matters requiring rebuttal of statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be decided on quashing, and the complaint may proceed if the ingredients of Section 138 are otherwise disclosed.

---