Cheque dishonour prosecution: disputed resignation and missing cheque defences held to require trial, not discharge.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the Delhi HC declined interference under Section 482 CrPC with an order refusing discharge. The complaint alleged that the accused signed a post-dated cheque issued towards consultancy fees, which was sufficient at this stage to attribute liability to the signatory. Pleas of resignation, missing cheques, and mala fide conduct raised disputed facts that required proof at trial, especially as the resignation was not shown to have been accepted or reflected in company records. The court held that, absent perversity or legal error, such defences could not justify quashing or discharge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order declining discharge in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act suffered from perversity or legal error warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including on the grounds of alleged missing cheques, alleged resignation, and absence of specific averments.

Analysis: The petition arose after an earlier challenge to the summoning order had already been declined to be examined on merits and the petitioner had been left to raise all available grounds before the trial court. The only question, therefore, was whether the impugned order was perverse, misplaced, or unsupported by material. The order was found to be reasoned and to have considered the complaint as well as the authorities relied upon. The complaint contained an averment that the post-dated cheque was issued towards consultancy fees and was signed by the petitioner, which was sufficient to attract the signatory's liability at this stage. The pleas that the petitioner had resigned, that the cheques were lost, and that the complaint was mala fide involved disputed facts and defences requiring proof in trial. The resignation letter was not shown to have been accepted or reflected in the company records, and the alleged loss of the cheque could be tested by evidence, including cross-examination of bank officials.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The refusal to discharge the petitioner was upheld and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: Interference in inherent jurisdiction was declined because the trial court's refusal to discharge was based on a proper appreciation of the complaint and the disputed factual defences were left for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, where the complaint contains an averment that the accused signed the cheque, disputed pleas such as resignation, missing cheques, or lack of liability are matters for trial and do not justify quashing or discharge in the absence of perversity or legal error.

---