Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act barred quashing where cheque signature was admitted and factual disputes remained.

A quashing challenge under the Negotiable Instruments Act failed where the cheque bore the applicant's signature and named the complainant as payee. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The objections that the complainant was not a holder in due course and that the cheque was allegedly issued only to the complainant's husband raised disputed questions of fact, which could not be examined at the Section 482 CrPC stage. The cited precedent was distinguished as inapplicable because the complainant was the payee named on the cheque, and the trial court's process was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and process issued under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed on the ground that the complainant was not the holder in due course and that the cheque was allegedly issued to the complainant's husband, requiring the Court to examine the defence at the threshold.

Analysis: The complaint specifically alleged that the applicant had borrowed money through the complainant's husband and relatives and had issued the cheque towards discharge of liability. The cheque bore the applicant's signature and the payee's name was entered in the cheque. Once signature on the cheque was admitted, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The question whether the complainant was not a holder in due course, and whether the cheque had in fact been issued to the husband alone, raised disputed questions of fact which could not be pre-judged in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The reliance on the cited precedent was held inapplicable because the present complainant was the payee named in the cheque.

Conclusion: The quashing petition was not maintainable on these grounds at the threshold, and the process issued by the trial court and affirmed in revision was upheld.

---