As per case facts, the Petitioner's husband allegedly took a loan from a "crime syndicate" including the Complainant's brother, leading to blank documents and a cheque being taken. A Section ... 138 NI Act complaint was filed against the Petitioner after the cheque, issued as per an alleged MOU, dishonoured. The Petitioner claims these documents, including an Agreement to Sell and the MOU, were forged and misused, asserting that she owes no money and that her husband had already repaid substantial amounts. She highlights ongoing criminal investigations where police reports suggested forgery and recommended action against the Complainant. The Petitioner sought to quash the Section 138 NI Act complaint, arguing it was a counter-blast and that the underlying transactions were fraudulent, with previous quashing petitions having been dismissed. The question arose whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed given the Petitioner's allegations of forgery, misuse of blank documents, ongoing criminal investigations, and the filing of a cancellation report by the police in a related FIR. Finally, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Petitioner's previous attempts to quash the complaint or secure discharge had been unsuccessful. It was noted that the issuance of the cheque and the Petitioner's signatures were not disputed. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner's claims of document manipulation and forgery constituted a defense that needed to be proven during trial, and that the Court would not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate disputed facts at this preliminary stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court found no merit in the petition.