Separate dishonoured cheques can create distinct Section 138 claims; disputed liability questions cannot be decided in quashing proceedings.

Separate dishonoured cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can generate distinct causes of action when each cheque is presented, dishonoured, and followed by statutory notice independently. The Supreme Court held that quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not meant for resolving disputed questions such as whether cheques were alternative securities or whether liability subsisted, because those issues require evidence at trial. On that basis, the complaint earlier quashed was restored, while the challenge to the other complaints failed and those matters were left for trial on evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether quashing of Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 on the ground that it related to the same underlying liability as an earlier complaint, and therefore amounted to parallel prosecution, was justified under the inherent jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the refusal to quash the remaining complaints arising from later dishonoured cheques was justified.

Issue (i): Whether quashing of Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 on the ground that it related to the same underlying liability as an earlier complaint, and therefore amounted to parallel prosecution, was justified under the inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be used sparingly and cannot be employed to resolve disputed questions of fact or to conduct a mini trial. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, each dishonour that satisfies the statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure to pay gives rise to a distinct cause of action. The cheques in the two complaints were separate instruments drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured independently. Whether they were alternative or substitutionary securities was a matter for evidence and not for summary adjudication.

Conclusion: The quashing of Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 was not justified and the complaint had to be restored for trial.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to quash the remaining complaints arising from later dishonoured cheques was justified.

Analysis: The later complaints were based on distinct cheques issued and dishonoured on separate dates, each followed by statutory notice. The ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were prima facie satisfied. The statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant, and the respondents' defence that no liability subsisted raised questions requiring trial. Such defences could not justify quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The refusal to quash the remaining complaints was justified.

Final Conclusion: The complaint quashed by the High Court was restored, while the challenge to the other complaints failed, leaving the matters to be decided on evidence before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, separate dishonoured cheques can generate separate causes of action, and disputed questions concerning the nature of the cheques or the existence of liability cannot be decided in quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---