Rebuttable cheque presumption and delay claims cannot defeat criminal proceedings where allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a rebuttable presumption, but on allegations that the cheque was post-dated and its date was interpolated, that presumption did not support quashing. Alleged mala fides or a counterblast complaint were treated as immaterial where the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence. Mere delay in lodging the complaint or FIR was also held insufficient to quash proceedings, especially when the matter was not shown to be barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The quashing application was rejected and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and cognizance order were liable to be quashed on the grounds that the cheque dispute attracted the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint was alleged to be mala fide or by way of counterblast, and the filing of the complaint was delayed.

Analysis: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebuttable, and on the complaint allegations the cheque was a post-dated cheque whose date was allegedly interpolated. On those facts, the Court held that the statutory presumption did not assist the applicant in seeking quashing. The alleged mala fides and counterblast nature of the complaint were held to be immaterial where the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. As regards delay, the Court held that mere delay in lodging a complaint or FIR is not, by itself, a ground to quash criminal proceedings, particularly when the case is not shown to be barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The application for quashing was rejected and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---