A cheque-number discrepancy requiring evidence cannot, by itself, justify quashing a Section 138 complaint.

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After recording her sworn statement, the Magistrate issued summons and registered the case as C.C. No. 1195/2023.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the alleged cheque dated 13 December 2022 could not have been issued when an earlier case had reached the evidence stage, and that the cheque number in the private complaint (000065) differed from the number in the respondent’s later police statement (000068). The High Court examined the order sheet in the earlier case and the asserted discrepancy.

1. Whether the fact that evidence in the earlier case was recorded only in July 2024 made it implausible that the petitioner approached the respondent for settlement and issued the cheque dated 13 December 2022.

2. Whether the discrepancy between the cheque numbers in the private complaint and the respondent’s later police statement warranted quashing the Section 138 proceedings.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to seek quashing of criminal proceedings; the complaint alleged an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and had been instituted under Section 200 CrPC.

In considering quashing, the Court stated that it would not undertake a detailed appreciation of disputed facts or weigh rival versions; factual matters requiring evidence are for the trial court to determine.

The earlier case had been posted for the complainant’s evidence on 10 November 2022, before the cheque date, even though the evidence was not actually recorded until 24 July 2024. The later recording date therefore did not make it impossible that the petitioner had approached the respondent for settlement and issued the cheque in December 2022.

The conflicting cheque numbers raised a factual question—whether the discrepancy arose from an inadvertent error or concerned the cheque’s actual identity—which could not be resolved in quashing proceedings and was for the trial court to assess on evidence.

The Court rejected both grounds for quashing, found no basis to interfere with the order issuing process, and dismissed the petition.