Dismissal of Petition Seeking Quashment Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The petition seeking quashment of the complaint case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as the court held that the issues raised were matters of defense to be decided during trial. The court found that all necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were present, including the existence of an enforceable liability due to non-payment of the stipulated amount by the specified date. The court emphasized the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the importance of not quashing complaints at the pre-trial stage unless the defense is of exceptional quality.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of complaint case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Existence of enforceable debt or liability.
4. Cheque issued as security.
5. Reciprocal obligations under the agreement.
6. Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashment of Complaint Case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner sought to quash the complaint case filed under Section 200 read with Section 138 of the NI Act, arguing that the cheque in question was issued as security and there was no subsisting liability on the date of issuance. The court held that the grounds raised by the petitioner are matters of defense that need to be adjudicated during the trial. The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as it was deemed inappropriate to quash the complaint at the pre-trial stage.

2. Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The court examined whether the necessary ingredients to attract Section 138 of the NI Act were present. It was established that the cheque was issued against the transfer of shares, was dishonored upon presentation, and the amount was not paid despite a legal notice. Therefore, all necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act were deemed to be present.

3. Existence of Enforceable Debt or Liability
The petitioner argued that there was no enforceable debt or liability on the date of issuance of the cheque. However, the court noted that the agreement stipulated the payment of Rs.2,62,00,000/- by 31.12.2019, failing which the cheque could be encashed. Since the amount was not paid within the stipulated period, the cheque matured for encashment, establishing an enforceable liability.

4. Cheque Issued as Security
The petitioner contended that the cheque was issued as security and not for the discharge of a debt. The court referred to multiple judgments, including *M/s. Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Ahuja* and *Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand*, which held that a cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 if the conditions for its encashment are met. The court concluded that the cheque in question, although issued as security, matured for encashment due to non-payment of the stipulated amount, thus attracting Section 138.

5. Reciprocal Obligations under the Agreement
The petitioner argued that the obligations were reciprocal and the respondent should refund the amount paid to reinstate their position as a partner. The court observed that the agreement's conditions required the payment of the remaining amount by a specific date, and failure to do so allowed the respondent to encash the cheque. The reciprocal nature of obligations did not absolve the petitioner from liability under Section 138.

6. Scope of Inherent Powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized that the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is limited and should not be used to quash complaints at the pre-trial stage unless the defense is of unimpeachable quality. The court cited *Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*, highlighting that quashing proceedings at the preliminary stage can result in grave and irreparable consequences. The factual defenses raised by the petitioner were deemed triable issues to be decided by the trial court.

Conclusion:
The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, with the court holding that the grounds raised by the petitioner were matters of defense to be adjudicated during the trial. The observations made in the order were specific to deciding the petition and did not influence the trial court's decision. There was no order as to costs.

---