Allegations of document forgery and pending FIRs constitute triable defenses, not grounds for quashing Section 138 NI Act proceedings.

The Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act against the Petitioner regarding the dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 50,00,000 dated 21.08.2010

The Respondent alleged that the Petitioner received earnest money for a property sale but failed to execute the documents, subsequently entering into an MOU on 21.08.2010 to settle the matter by issuing the subject cheque

The Petitioner moved for quashing, contending that the cheque and supporting documents were forged by a "crime syndicate" (including the Respondent's brother) who had trapped her husband in a predatory loan scheme in 2007

The Petitioner relied on an FSL report and EOW investigations in FIR No. 0236/2013 and FIR No. 0831/2014, which suggested certain sale documents were forged

Notably, the Petitioner had previously filed two quashing petitions and a revision petition for discharge, all of which were dismissed

Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of alleged forgery and lack of legal liability when the signatures on the cheque are admitted.

Whether the findings of a police investigation/cancellation report in a related FIR are sufficient to quash a private complaint under the NI Act without a trial.

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which grants inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court but must be exercised sparingly only when no offense is disclosed on the face of the complaint

It referred to the principle in *Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra* regarding the remedy for seeking discharge in summons cases

It further noted the restricted scope of interference at the pre-trial stage as established in *Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate*, emphasizing that courts should not conduct "mini-trials" or evaluate disputed defense evidence under Section 482

The Court observed that the Petitioner did not dispute her signatures on the cheque

While the Petitioner argued that the underlying transaction was fraudulent and supported by forged documents, the Court noted that the Respondent claimed the cheque was issued pursuant to a specific MOU dated 21.08.2010, which the Respondent asserted was valid and distinct from the documents under investigation in the FIRs

The Court found that the allegations of forgery, the absence of a debt, and the impact of the FSL reports are secondary defenses that must be proved through evidence during a trial

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the Petitioner’s repeated attempts to seek quashing and discharge had already been rejected by coordinate benches and lower courts, indicating an attempt to stall proceedings

It ruled that since the signatures on the cheque were not questioned, the Petitioner's claims regarding the manipulation of the MOU and lack of liability are matters of defense to be adjudicated at trial

The court concluded that the continuation of the proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process