Distinct cause of action for each dishonoured cheque limits quashing of a second complaint under cheque dishonour law.

Dishonoured cheques issued towards part discharge of liability were treated as giving rise to a distinct cause of action for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The existence of another complaint concerning related invoices did not, by itself, establish double jeopardy or sameness of offence, particularly where the earlier complaint acknowledged the pendency of the present case and a substantial outstanding liability remained. The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was described as limited at the pre-trial stage, and factual defences were left open. The challenge to the second complaint and the summoning proceedings therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred on the ground of double jeopardy or sameness of cause of action, and whether interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was warranted with the revisional order affirming the summoning order.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on dishonoured cheques issued towards part discharge of the petitioners' liability. The existence of another complaint concerning related invoices did not, by itself, establish that the present prosecution was for the same offence, especially when the earlier complaint itself acknowledged the pendency of the present case and substantial outstanding liability beyond the cheque amount. It was held that dishonour of each cheque gives rise to a distinct cause of action, and the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the holder unless rebutted. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also held to be limited, particularly at the pre-trial stage when factual defences remain open.

Conclusion: The challenge based on double jeopardy and maintainability of the second complaint failed, and no ground was made out for interference with the revisional order or the summoning proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not accepted, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where dishonoured cheques are issued towards part discharge of liability, each cheque may generate a distinct prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court will not be exercised to quash such proceedings absent a clear legal bar.

---