Cheque dishonour complaints survive when post-amendment territorial jurisdiction applies and a prima facie Section 138 case is made out.

Post-amendment territorial jurisdiction under the Negotiable Instruments Act governs cheque dishonour complaints, so an objection based on the earlier Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod position will not, by itself, justify quashing. A variation in the complainant's name across the receipt, cheque and complaint is insufficient where the record identifies the same person and the cheque was issued in that person's favour. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to conduct a merits-based review when the complaint discloses the ingredients of Section 138 and cognizance has already been taken. The proceedings were therefore permitted to continue at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction in view of the later amendment to the Act. (ii) Whether the variation in the complainant's name across the receipt, cheque and complaint justified quashing of the proceedings. (iii) Whether a prima facie case under Section 138 being made out barred interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction in view of the later amendment to the Act.

Analysis: The earlier jurisdictional rule under the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod was noted, but the later legislative amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act by insertion of Section 142(2) and Section 142A was treated as having modified that position. On that basis, the objection that the Vikarabad court lacked territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Conclusion: The territorial jurisdiction objection was rejected against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the variation in the complainant's name across the receipt, cheque and complaint justified quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis: The Court treated the different name forms as referring to the same person and held that the discrepancy did not defeat the complaint when the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant as identifiable from the record. The inconsistency was held insufficient to negate the complaint at the threshold.

Conclusion: The name discrepancy did not warrant quashing in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether a prima facie case under Section 138 being made out barred interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Applying the principle that inherent power cannot be used to evaluate defence material or to quash proceedings where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence, the Court found that cognizance had already been taken and summons issued on a prima facie case. The petitioner's attempt to invoke Section 482 for a merits-based challenge was therefore not permitted.

Conclusion: The Court held that the proceedings could not be quashed under Section 482.

Final Conclusion: The cheque dishonour prosecution was allowed to proceed, as neither the jurisdictional challenge nor the name discrepancy nor the invocation of inherent powers justified interference at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act discloses a prima facie offence, the High Court will not quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the post-amendment jurisdictional scheme governs territorial competence.

---