Security cheque cannot sustain Section 138 prosecution when no enforceable debt is shown and complaint versions conflict.

A cheque issued only as security does not meet the requirement of being issued in discharge of a debt or other legally enforceable liability, so prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained on that basis. The complaint materials also showed inconsistency as to who had issued the cheque, reinforcing the defect in the complainant's case. On these facts, continuation of the prosecution would serve no purpose, and interference in inherent jurisdiction was warranted, with the proceedings liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the cheque was issued as security and the complaint materials showed inconsistency as to who had issued the cheque.

Analysis: A cheque issued merely as security does not satisfy the requirement of being issued for discharge of a debt or other legally enforceable liability. The complaint itself indicated that the cheque was taken as security along with a promissory note, and the notices issued by the complainant showed a different version regarding the persons by whom the cheque was issued. In view of these features, continuation of the prosecution would serve no purpose and interference under the inherent jurisdiction was warranted.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed and the complaint under Section 138 could not be maintained on the facts disclosed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque issued only as security, and not towards discharge of an existing debt or legally enforceable liability, will not support prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---