Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act survived a fraud defence, so quashing was refused.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not quashed in writ jurisdiction because the cheque issuance and dishonour were undisputed and the Section 139 presumption of debt or liability remained unrebutted. The drawer bore the burden of showing fraud or other material capable of displacing that presumption, but the writ record was insufficient to conclusively establish such a defence. The Court reiterated that quashing is confined to exceptional cases and declined to interfere where the complaint disclosed a prima facie case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the cheque was allegedly obtained by fraud and that the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted.

Analysis: The cheque issuance and dishonour were not disputed. Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a presumption arises that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a debt or liability. The onus to rebut that presumption lay on the drawer, and the materials placed in the writ petitions were insufficient to conclusively establish fraud. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court was not persuaded to accept the defence so as to hold that the statutory presumption had been displaced. The principles governing quashing were noted, but the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and did not fall within the exceptional categories warranting interference.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed, and the petitions were dismissed.

---