A disputed defense regarding the misuse of a cheque in a Section 138 NI Act case constitutes a factual dispute requiring evidence and is not a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings under S.528 BNSS.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under S.528 of the BNSS Act to quash private complaint proceedings under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the cheque was issued to a third party and subsequently misused by the complainant, claiming a lack of transaction. The court found that this defense requires oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition. The core issue is whether a disputed transaction involving the alleged misuse of a cheque constitutes sufficient grounds to quash criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that disputed defenses in a summary trial (S.138 NI Act) cannot be determined at the threshold stage of a quashing petition under the BNSS Act.

Result: The petition stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings based on lack of transaction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. evidentiary disputes concerning check misuse are inappropriate for determination in a quashing application. (Para 3)

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused person in S.T.C.No.

1791 of 2026, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, seeking to quash the private complaint initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the cheque was initially issued by the petitioner only in favour of one Dhanapalan who had misused the said cheque and given it to the present complainant. He further submits that he has no transaction whatsoever with the present complainant.

3. The submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would make it clear that it is a defence taken by the petitioner in the summary trial proceedings. This defence cannot be a ground for quashing of the private complaint lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It requires oral and documentary evidence to establish whether the cheque was initially issued in favour of Dhanapalan and he had misused the same and handed it over to the present complainant.

4. In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the petition.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASR.Vijayakumar, JS.Karthigayini – AppellantVersusV.Saravanakumar – RespondentCrl.OP.(MD)No.7973 of 2026 | Crl.M.P(MD)No.8586 of 2026

A disputed defense regarding the misuse of a cheque in a Section 138 NI Act case constitutes a factual dispute requiring evidence and is not a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings under S.528 BNSS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Vijayakumar, J
S.Karthigayini – Appellant
Versus
V.Saravanakumar – Respondent
Crl.OP.(MD)No.7973 of 2026 | Crl.M.P(MD)No.8586 of 2026