Short Note : 1. In this application, the accused contends that on the facts alleged by the complainant in his complaint and in the evidence, no prima facie case for the framing of the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out; that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and a criminal complaint was filed only to pressurise the accused for payment despite disputes between the complainant and the accused regarding the quality of goods and that the learned Magistrate erred in framing a charge against the accused. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused, as also for the complainant and am of the view that at this stage of the case, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court. 2. Held: The undisputed facts in this case are that goods worth more than Rs.1,18,000 were purchased by the accused from the complainant at Mhow and delivery of the goods was taken by him. The price of these goods was not paid in cash but for the payment of the price the accused issued three cheques payable on Ist, 8th and 30th October, 1976. These cheques were not cashed by the Bank on which they were drawn by the accused. Presently the record is silent to show under what circumstances the Bank refused to encash the cheques drawn by the accused. It may be that the accused either stopped the payment or the accused had no balance to his credit to enable the Bank to cash the cheques. From the notice issued to and the reply given by the accused, it appears that the accused is raising certain disputes regarding the quality of goods, which he in his own turn appears to have sold to some merchants of Madras. Whether the goods were examined by the accused at the time when they were purchased at Mhow or the alleged defect in the goods was noticed only when the accused sold the goods to his purchaser in Madras are matters, which have not been brought on record by the accused either by way of cross-examination of the complainant or his witnesses or by any other documentary evidence. It is, however, apparent that the goods worth more than Rs.1,18,000 were purchased by the accused at Mhow and the cheques issued for the payment of the price of these goods have not been honoured by the Bank on which they were drawn. These facts may prima facie raise a presumption that the complainant is justified in alleging that if the accused hid not represented that the cheques would be honoured on the due dates, goods for such a substantial amount would not have been delivered to the accused. whether on the facts alleged by the complainant the accused would or would not be found guilty is a matter which cannot at the present stage be decided. The accused will have due opportunity, according to law, to rebut the case of the complainant. AIR 1928 Mad. 129 , AIR 1954 SC 724 , AIR 1977 SC 1489 and AIR 1977 SC 1754 distinguished. Revision dismissed.