Threshold quashing of Section 138 complaint barred where defence turns on disputed facts requiring full trial.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should not be quashed at the threshold where the defence turns on disputed facts requiring trial. The cheque return endorsement stated "Account Frozen", while the defence claimed that no such bank account existed, creating a material factual conflict that could not be resolved in summary proceedings. The High Court's quashing order was therefore unsustainable, and the complaint had to proceed before the trial court, where the accused could raise all available pleas. The trial court was directed to restore the case and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the threshold.

Analysis: The endorsement on the returned cheque showed "Account Frozen", while the defence evidence asserted that no such bank account existed. The conflict in material facts required detailed appreciation by the trial court. The disputed nature of the record made summary quashing inappropriate, and the matter required a full-fledged trial.

Conclusion: The quashing order could not be sustained. The complaint was required to proceed before the trial court, and the respondent was entitled to raise all available pleas there.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the trial court was directed to restore the case and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should not be quashed at the threshold where the defence depends on disputed facts that require trial.

---