Court Upholds Section 138 Complaints, Emphasizes Rare Quashing

The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that quashing should be rare and not done mechanically. It found that the account from which cheques were issued belonged to the petitioner, establishing an essential ingredient of Section 138. Allegations of misuse of blank signed cheques by the petitioner's father-in-law were deemed disputed facts requiring trial evidence. The court highlighted the importance of addressing factual defenses during trial, ultimately concluding that the case did not meet the criteria for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Validity of cheques issued from an account allegedly not maintained by the petitioner.
3. Allegations of misuse of blank signed cheques.
4. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Disputed facts and their impact on the quashing of complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that quashing a complaint should be done sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. The court noted that the power of quashing is not to be exercised mechanically or routinely.

2. Validity of Cheques Issued from an Account Allegedly Not Maintained by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the account from which the cheques were issued was not maintained by her. The court found that the account was in the petitioner’s name, and there was no dispute that the signatures on the cheques were hers. The court noted that these facts were sufficient to establish that the account was maintained by the petitioner, thus fulfilling one of the essential ingredients of Section 138.

3. Allegations of Misuse of Blank Signed Cheques
The petitioner contended that blank signed cheques were misused by her father-in-law, who allegedly operated the account in her absence. The court held that these are disputed facts that require evidence and cannot be the basis for quashing the complaints. The court emphasized that such issues should be addressed during the trial.

4. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Sections 118 and 139 of the Act raise presumptions in favor of the holder of the cheque. The court reiterated that unless the contrary is proved, it is presumed that the cheque was issued for the discharge of debt or liability. The veracity of the petitioner’s defense that no amount was borrowed from the complainants is a matter for trial and cannot be resolved in a quashing petition.

5. Disputed Facts and Their Impact on the Quashing of Complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court noted that the contentions regarding the use of complaints as pressure tactics in a matrimonial dispute, the involvement of the petitioner’s father-in-law, and the misuse of cheques are all disputed facts. These issues require evidence and cannot form the basis for quashing the complaints. The court emphasized that such factual defenses should be addressed during the trial.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the case does not fall within the parameters for quashing complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitions were dismissed, and it was clarified that nothing stated in the judgment should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The court also noted that the matter was referred to mediation, but no settlement was reached.

Additional Notes
- The Supreme Court had earlier set aside an interim order by the High Court directing the complainant to produce documentary proof of his source of income, stating that such matters should be addressed during the trial.
- The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions to support its conclusions, emphasizing the limited scope of quashing petitions and the importance of addressing disputed facts during the trial.

---