JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the Appellant impugning the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15057 of 2010, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code of Criminal Procedure."). By the impugned order, the High Court has declined to quash the proceedings initiated against the Appellant on the ground that all the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further observed that, at this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments, namely, R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr., 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, but without culling out the ratio of any of the aforesaid judgments, it has been observed by the High Court that the defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. It has further been observed that "the applicants have got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may through a proper application for the said purpose and the accused persons are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court."

2. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length.

3. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that the High Court has dismissed the petition for quashing of the proceedings without actually considering the factual position. She points out that the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2-complainant have entered into a business transaction. The Respondent No. 2 - complainant had approached the Appellant, who is engaged in the business of sale and distribution of handicrafts including indigenous artificial jewelry, with a proposal to provide wooden bracelets. The Respondent No. 2 showed some samples to the Appellant, from amongst which the Appellant picked one and placed an order for 9693 pieces of wooden bracelets with the Respondent. The Appellant also admittedly made an advance payment of Rs. 1 lakh by cheque to the Respondent.

4. The goods supplied by the Respondent were of inferior quality material and, also, were not in conformity with the specification provided by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant raised a debit note on 20th October, 2008 on the Respondent, with the consent of the Respondent. It is also brought to our notice by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel, that the Respondent No. 2 had been working with the Appellant for quite some time and had an on-going business relationship with the Appellant. It was in consideration of the established relationship that the Respondent No. 2 had agreed to accept the goods supplied as deficient and had promised to adjust the amount mentioned in the debit note against future orders. But on 28th January, 2009 the Respondent No. 2 sent a legal notice demanding payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,52,018. The Appellant replied to the Respondent No. 2's legal notice on 4th February, 2009, denying the liability for the reason stated above. She submits that the criminal complaint has been filed to harass the Appellant who is a widow and only earning member of her family. She submits that criminal complaint has been filed maliciously. It being abuse of the process of law was required to be quashed.

5. We have perused the complaint, which has been made by the Respondent No. 2, in which it is stated that the Respondent No. 2 had delivered 9693 finished wooden bracelets to the Appellant at the agreed price of Rs. 26/- per piece. Total price of the aforesaid merchandise was Rs. 2,52,018/-. It is also admitted that the Appellant issued a cheque