Cheque dishonour disputes and alleged absence of debt must usually be tested at trial, not quashed under inherent powers.

In a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, disputed defences such as alleged misuse of the cheque, account closure, and absence of a legally enforceable debt cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The drawer may rebut the statutory presumption by leading evidence at trial, but those factual controversies are not fit for quashing at the threshold. Mere closure of the account does not, by itself, eliminate liability at this stage, and the complaint was permitted to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds that the account was closed and that the cheque was said to have been issued towards legal fees and other disputed liabilities.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed that the cheques were issued for more than one stated purpose, including commission for an LIC policy and legal fees. The defence that the account had been closed long earlier and that the cheque was misused raised disputed factual questions that could not be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The plea that the amount was not supported by a legally enforceable debt was held to be a matter for trial, and the drawer could rebut the statutory presumption by leading evidence before the trial court. Mere dishonour on the ground of account closure did not, by itself, absolve liability at this stage.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on these disputed facts and was liable to be dismissed; the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed to proceed to trial.

Final Conclusion: The criminal original petition was rejected at the threshold, with directions for expeditious trial and consequential appearance and bail-related compliance before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for quashing, disputed factual defences against a cheque dishonour complaint, including absence of legally enforceable debt or misuse of the cheque, must ordinarily be left to trial and cannot be finally determined under inherent jurisdiction.

---