Summary
The High Court could not quash a Section 138 complaint at the summons stage by deciding that the cheque represented a time-barred debt. Whether the debt was legally enforceable was a mixed question of law and fact for determination on evidence.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could determine at the Section 482 stage that the cheque represented a time-barred debt and quash a Section 138 complaint.
Provisions considered
- Sections 118, 138 and 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The complaint alleged dishonour of a cheque under Section 138, and the Court noted the rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. Whether the underlying debt was time-barred was a matter for evidence and could not be decided at the quashing stage. (¶¶ 2, 6, 7)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction was not a forum to decide the mixed question whether the underlying debt was time-barred before evidence was led in the Section 138 proceedings. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- Whether a debt underlying a cheque was barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and fact that must be decided on evidence. It cannot be resolved by the High Court at the threshold while exercising Section 482 jurisdiction in a Section 138 prosecution. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable; the accused may seek to dislodge them through evidence at trial. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s order was set aside and the Section 138 complaint was restored to the Trial Court.