Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint refused where disputed factual defences required evidence and statutory presumptions remained intact.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the accused relied on disputed factual defences, including that the cheque was dishonoured for reasons other than insufficiency of funds and that the account had merged or become non-operational. The Court held that such matters required evidence and could not ordinarily be decided at the quashing stage, particularly when those defences had not been raised in reply to the statutory notice. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 could not be displaced on the material then available, so the prosecution was allowed to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of disputed factual defences not raised in reply to the statutory notice.

Analysis: The defence that the cheque was returned for reasons other than insufficiency of funds, and that the account position was affected by merger or non-operational status, depended on disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. The accused had not replied to the statutory notice raising these matters. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot ordinarily enter into such disputed factual issues or displace the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the threshold. The materials relied upon by the accused were not sufficient for quashing the prosecution without trial.

Conclusion: The complaint and the order issuing process were not liable to be quashed, and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was permitted to proceed, with the factual defences left to be decided in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be used to quash a negotiable instruments prosecution on disputed factual defences that require evidence, especially where the accused has not raised those defences in response to the statutory notice.

---