Limitation objection in a Section 138 complaint was left to the trial court, and quashing was declined.

A quashing petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was declined where the limitation objection was still a disputed question of fact and law pending before the trial court. The High Court noted that cognizance had already been taken and that no conclusive determination of limitation had yet been made in the complaint proceedings. In that position, it refused to grant effective relief in the quashing jurisdiction and left the limitation issue to be decided by the trial court after hearing both sides in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be quashed on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The limitation objection was found to be a disputed question of fact and law that remained pending consideration before the trial court. The court noted that the magistrate had already taken cognizance and that the limitation question had not yet been conclusively determined in the trial proceedings. In that backdrop, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction to grant effective relief in the quashing petition and left the issue to be decided by the trial court in accordance with law after hearing both sides.

Conclusion: The request to quash the proceeding on limitation was rejected, and the proceeding was allowed to continue for determination of the limitation issue by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on merits for quashing, and the limitation question was directed to be decided by the trial court in the pending complaint proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the central objection raised in a quashing petition remains sub judice before the trial court and no effective adjudication is warranted at that stage, the High Court may decline interference and leave the issue for decision in accordance with law.

---