Cheque dishonour prosecution cannot be quashed on disputed security cheque defence where liability and ledger entries need trial evidence.

A summoning order in a cheque dishonour prosecution was not quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the accused's defence that the cheque was only a security cheque, and that the ledger did not show a legally enforceable debt for the cheque amount, raised disputed questions of fact. The court held that such issues require evidence, cross-examination, and trial, and cannot be determined at the quashing stage. It also noted that the complaint and supporting material prima facie showed issuance of the cheque towards an existing liability, with the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act supporting the complainant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of the accused's defence that the cheque was a security cheque and that the complainant's ledger did not reflect a legally enforceable debt equal to the cheque amount.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the actual liability subsisting on the date of presentation of the cheque and on the genuineness of the competing ledger entries. The Court held that these were disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, cross-examination, and trial. It noted that, at the summoning stage, the complaint and supporting material prima facie showed issuance of the cheque towards discharge of an existing liability, and that the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 supported the complainant. The Court further held that a quashing court cannot conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of documents or decide whether the cheque was issued as security before the trial court evaluates the evidence.

Conclusion: The summoning order was not liable to be quashed, and the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.

---