The court emphasized that mixed questions of fact and law must be resolved by a full trial rather than through a petition under Section 482.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

" (a) Quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent before the XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore in C.C.No.53579/2021;

(b) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case."

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent instituted proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "N.I. Act"), inter alia, contending that the petitioner had issued a cheque dated 10.11.2019 in favour of the respondent/complainant which had been dishonoured on the ground that petitioner had instructed the Bank to stop payment of the said cheque and as such, the respondent issued a statutory notice dated 05.03.2020 followed by the impugned proceedings in PCR No.52142/2020 filed on 02.06.2020 which are currently pending in C.C.No.53579/2021.

3. It is a matter on record and an undisputed fact that the respondent examined herself as PW-1 and was partly cross-examined by the petitioner and the matter was posted at the stage of pronouncement of judgment, at which stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and submit that pursuant to the impugned subject cheque in question dated 10.11.2019 and before the said cheque was dis- honoured on 06.02.2020, the petitioner had made several payments towards the amount covered under the cheque and consequently the impugned proceedings was not maintainable, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Another reported in (2023) 1 SCC 578. Therefore, he submitted that continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, warranting interference in the present petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that though the respondent may have received certain amounts from the petitioner, the said amounts allegedly received by the respondent from the petitioner were not towards the subject cheque transaction or amount covered under the said cheque and consequently the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dashrathbai's case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also submitted that the dispute as to whether the petitioner had paid certain amounts towards the amount covered under the cheque would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court after conducting a thorough full-fledged trial and the same being disputed questions of law and fact, the same cannot be adjudicated in the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and consequently the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims including the contentions urged by the petitioner, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dashrathbhai's case (supra), the entire material on record and the rival submissions made by both sides would indicate that there is a question as to whether the petitioner paid certain amounts towards the cheque in question before its presentation and dishonour, is a mixed question of fact and law, which necessarily has to be decided only after a full-fledged trial and not in the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., especially, when the respondent/complainant specifically contends