Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to test disputed defences in cheque dishonour prosecutions; trial must decide them.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the Delhi HC held that disputed defences such as the alleged liability, whether cheques were security cheques, the effect of a no objection certificate, and alleged defects in authorisation cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. It noted that Section 138 proceedings operate on statutory presumptions and that the accused must raise such defences before the trial court through the procedure provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the CrPC. As the petition sought quashing on factual disputes requiring evidence, no ground for interference was made out and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order in a cheque dishonour prosecution deserved interference on the basis of the defences raised by the petitioner.

Analysis: The petition was founded on disputed questions relating to the alleged liability, the nature of the cheques as security cheques, the effect of the no objection certificate, and the alleged defects in authorisation. The Court held that such defences require evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It emphasised that prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act proceed on statutory presumptions, that the accused may raise defences before the trial court, and that recall of witnesses and defence-related steps must be pursued in the manner provided by the special procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: No ground for quashing was made out, and interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The criminal petition was found untenable and the cheque dishonour proceedings were left to continue before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to decide disputed factual defences in a Section 138 prosecution, which must be tested at trial in the manner prescribed by the special statutory procedure.

---