Cheque dishonour complaint quashing is unwarranted where COVID-19 frustration and consideration failure remain trial defences.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the accompanying summoning order cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely on allegations of failure of consideration, frustration of contract due to COVID-19, or absence of detailed reasons at the summoning stage. Where the complaint discloses that the cheque was issued against a liability arising from the licence deed and the Magistrate has found the Sections 138 and 142 requirements satisfied, those objections remain matters of defence for trial. At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate need only form an opinion on the material before the court; detailed reasons are not required. The summoning order was therefore found to suffer from no legal infirmity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds of alleged failure of consideration, frustration of contract due to COVID-19, and absence of detailed reasons at the stage of summoning.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed that the cheque was issued towards liability arising from the licence deed and that the trial court had satisfied itself that the complaint met the requirements of Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The licence deed contained no clause waiving rent because of an unforeseen event causing interruption of business. The grounds raised by the petitioners were held to be matters of defence, to be urged before the trial court, and not grounds for quashing at the threshold. At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to form an opinion on the basis of the material placed before it, and detailed reasons are not necessary.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the asserted grounds and the summoning order suffered from no legal infirmity.

---