Security cheque disputes and subsisting liability under cheque dishonour law are triable issues, not quashable at the threshold.

In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, disputes over whether cheques were issued as security and whether any legally enforceable debt or liability existed were treated as factual questions for trial, not matters for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The complaint's specific averments on supply of gold, issuance and dishonour of cheques, and demand for return of the gold supported continuation of the proceedings, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The challenge to the Section 251 notice and summoning order was therefore rejected on the pleaded defence, leaving the parties to contest liability at trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice framed under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the summoning order in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers on the basis that the cheques were issued as security and that no legally enforceable debt or liability existed.

Analysis: The petition was founded on a factual defence that the cheques were security cheques and that the underlying liability had not crystallised. The complaint, however, contained specific averments regarding supply of gold, issuance of the cheques, dishonour, and demand for return of the gold. The Court noted that the existence of a legally enforceable liability and the character of the cheques as security or otherwise were disputed questions of fact. Relying on the settled principles governing Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the limited scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court held that such defences are matters for trial and cannot be resolved at the threshold, particularly when the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the complainant.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable on the pleaded defence, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed factual defences regarding security cheques and subsisting liability in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because they are triable issues governed by the statutory presumption in favour of the cheque holder.

---