Court in the cases of MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and another, (2013) 1 SCC 177 and Sicagen India Limited Vs. Mahindra Vadineni and others, (2019) 4 SCC 271 , a dishonour whether based on a second or any successive presentation of a cheque for encashment would be a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 and clause (a) to proviso thereof. So long as the cheque remains valid and unpaid, there is a continuing obligation of drawer to make good the same. As such, prosecution based on second or successive default/dishonour of cheque is maintainable. So far as judgments relied upon on behalf of the applicants are concerned, the same are distinguishable on the facts of this case, as in this case as per the stand of the applicant nos.2 and 3, the cheque has not been issued by the Director of the company or authorized representative of the company. The cheque in question is a personal cheque of the applicant no.1, hence the same is not helpful to the applicants. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion of two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. At the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in complaint and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law.
