Cheque dishonour complaints not quashed for prematurity where notice was unanswered and trial had reached Section 313 stage.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a plea that the complaint was premature was rejected where the accused did not reply to the statutory notice or inform the complainant that the account was blocked. The Court held that such silence did not support quashing on the ground of non-maintainability. It further held that once the trial had substantially commenced and the case had reached Section 313 examination, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash proceedings on disputed factual defences, which remained matters for trial. The petitions were dismissed and the trial was directed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were premature and not maintainable on account of the notice period; (ii) whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the trial had already reached the stage of examination under Section 313.

Issue (i): whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were premature and not maintainable on account of the notice period.

Analysis: The challenge was based on the plea that the complaints were filed before expiry of the statutory time after notice and that the dishonour was due to the account being blocked. The Court noted that the accused had not replied to the statutory notice and had not informed the complainant that the account was blocked. On the facts, the accused's silence after notice did not assist the plea that the prosecution was vitiated as premature.

Conclusion: The complaints were not accepted as liable to be quashed on the ground of prematurity.

Issue (ii): whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the trial had already reached the stage of examination under Section 313.

Analysis: The Court found that the case had already progressed to the stage of Section 313 examination and that the accused had approached the Court only thereafter. Relying on the settled restraint on exercise of inherent powers once trial has substantially commenced, the Court held that the defence based on factual disputes could be raised before the trial court and was not a proper ground for quashing at that stage.

Conclusion: Quashing was declined and the proceedings were directed to continue.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed, and the trial was ordered to proceed to its logical conclusion within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, where trial has substantially commenced and the accused has not responded to the statutory notice, disputed defences based on facts such as account blockage are matters for trial and do not justify quashing under the Court's inherent powers.

---