Section 138 cheque dishonour complaints: summoning orders will not be quashed when defence issues can be raised at trial.

In complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, summoning orders will not ordinarily be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the Magistrate has considered the complaint and affidavit materials before issuing process. The accused's objections, including claims that cheques were forged or had been lost long earlier, are matters for defence before the trial court, especially because the Section 139 presumption operates in favour of the complainant. The prosecution must proceed through the statutory trial process, including notice, plea under Section 251, and defence evidence. In the absence of any police complaint, bank intimation, or satisfactory explanation for delay, the quashing petitions were held not maintainable and the summoning orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning orders in the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds of alleged forged or lost cheques and unexplained delay in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The complaints and affidavits were found to have been considered by the Magistrate before issuing summons, and the Court held that this did not disclose any error warranting interference at the quashing stage. It was further held that a cheque dishonour prosecution must proceed in the manner contemplated by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including notice, plea under Section 251, and defence evidence before the trial court. The Court also noted that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the complainant, while the accused must raise and prove his defence before the Magistrate. The allegation that the cheques were lost years earlier was not accepted, particularly in the absence of any police complaint or intimation to the bank, and the delay in filing the petitions remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The quashing petitions were not maintainable on the facts and the summoning orders were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court will not quash summoning orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the Magistrate has applied mind to the complaint materials and the accused has an available defence to be raised before the trial court.

---