Cheque dishonour defences requiring evidence cannot support quashing, and impleading a proprietorship concern does not invalidate the complaint.

Disputed service of the statutory notice, the drawer's incarceration, and repeated presentation and dishonour of the cheque require evidentiary assessment at trial and remain matters of defence in cheque dishonour proceedings. The statutory presumption applicable to such proceedings continues to operate at the pre-trial stage. A proprietorship concern is not legally distinct from its proprietor in the manner of a company, so impleading the concern does not invalidate the complaint. Quashing was declined, leaving the applicant to raise legal and factual defences at trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque should be quashed on the grounds of disputed service of statutory notice, the applicant's incarceration, repeated presentation of the cheque, and impleadment of a proprietorship concern instead of its proprietor.

Analysis: The questions regarding the applicant's incarceration, service of notice, and circumstances of presentation and dishonour of the cheque require evidentiary consideration at trial and constitute matters of defence. The statutory presumption applicable to cheque dishonour proceedings remains available at this stage. A proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not distinct in the manner of a company; therefore, impleadment of the proprietorship concern did not invalidate the complaint.

Conclusion: Quashing was declined; the applicant may contest the proceedings at trial by raising all legal and factual defences.

---