Section 482 quashing is refused where cheque forgery and misuse claims raise disputed facts requiring trial in a Section 138 complaint.

In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, allegations that a cheque and related documents were forged, or that a blank signed cheque was misused, do not warrant quashing of a Section 138 NI Act complaint at the threshold when the cheque and signatures are admitted. The Court cannot conduct a mini trial or resolve disputed defence facts on quashing; such issues require evidence at trial. Pendency of police investigations and reliance on seized documents did not, by itself, make the complaint unsustainable, especially where the complainant asserted that the cheque arose from the underlying MOU and was independent of the FIR material. The quashing request was rejected and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the plea that the cheque and supporting documents were forged, the cheque formed part of pending police investigations, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for trial. At the quashing stage, the Court does not conduct a mini trial or weigh disputed defence material. The issuance of the cheque and the signatures thereon were not disputed. The allegations that the cheque was a blank signed instrument, that the MOU and related documents were forged, and that the cheque had been misused were matters of defence requiring proof in trial. The pendency of police proceedings and the petitioner's reliance on seized documents did not by itself render the cheque-bounce complaint unsustainable, particularly when the complainant maintained that the cheque arose from the MOU and was independent of the documents referred to in the FIRs. Prior dismissal of earlier quashing petitions and the discharge application also supported continuation of the complaint proceedings.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was held to be fit to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the defence raised disputed factual issues that could not be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the cheque-bounce prosecution was permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of forgery or misuse of a cheque, when they rest on disputed facts and require evidence, do not justify quashing of a Section 138 prosecution at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the cheque and signatures are not in dispute.

---