Section 138 cheque complaints: process need not fail for lack of Section 202 inquiry, and time-barred debt may still be enforceable.

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, process was not liable to be quashed for alleged non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the Magistrate had considered the complaint verification and supporting documents before issuing process. The Court also held that a limitation objection regarding the underlying liability raised a mixed question of law and fact: a cheque issued in acknowledgment or settlement of a time-barred debt may still support a legally enforceable obligation under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. On the pleadings and documents, a prima facie enforceable liability was disclosed, so the challenge to the process order failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order issuing process was vitiated for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt where the underlying liability was alleged to be time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the order issuing process was vitiated for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: Section 202 requires postponement of process and inquiry where the accused resides beyond jurisdiction, but the Court relied on the settled position that in complaints under Section 138, inquiry may be based on the complainant's verification and documents, and examination of witnesses on affidavit is not compulsory in every case. The Magistrate had examined the complaint verification and documents before issuing process, and the revisional court had found that the statutory requirement stood sufficiently complied with.

Conclusion: The contention based on absence of inquiry under Section 202 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt where the underlying liability was alleged to be time-barred.

Analysis: The Court treated the limitation objection as a mixed question of law and fact. It held that a written promise to pay a time-barred debt can be enforced under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, and that a cheque issued in settlement of such liability may constitute a legally enforceable obligation. On the pleadings and documents, the debt transfer, acknowledgment, and cheque issuance disclosed a prima facie enforceable liability, and the question could not be finally decided at the threshold in quashing proceedings.

Conclusion: The contention that no legally enforceable debt existed was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the challenged process order and revisional order were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, process will not be quashed merely because the Magistrate did not conduct a witness-examination inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a cheque issued in acknowledgment or settlement of a time-barred liability may still disclose a legally enforceable debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.

---