Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that no legally recoverable debt or liability existed.
Analysis: The complaint alleged that money had been advanced for business needs and that, upon settlement of accounts, the cheques in question were issued. On a prima facie reading, the pleadings disclosed the foundational ingredients of the offence. The statutory presumption attached to the cheque transaction could operate at trial. The material relied upon by the accused, including the dissolution deed and its recitals, was held to be part of the defence and not a basis for a pre-trial determination at the stage of cognizance or charge. Applying the settled principles governing quashing, the case was not one where the allegations were inherently absurd, patently improbable, or disclosed an abuse of process warranting interference.
Conclusion: The existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability could not be ruled out at the threshold, and the proceedings were not liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the complaint on its face discloses the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, disputed defence material cannot be used to quash the prosecution at the cognizance or charge stage.