Section 138 cheque prosecution needs a legally enforceable debt; complaint failed to show any liability and was quashed.

Criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of dishonour, non-payment after notice, and a legally enforceable debt or other liability for which the cheque was issued. The statutory presumption under Section 139 operates only until the contrary is shown. On the pleaded facts, the alleged liability was said to arise from services rendered by the complainant's sons, not by the complainant herself, and no service relationship or arrangement existed between the complainant and the petitioner. The complaint therefore failed to disclose the essential foundational liability needed to sustain a Section 138 proceeding, and quashing was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed where the complaint itself showed that no debt or other liability was due from the petitioner to the complainant.

Analysis: A prosecution under Section 138 requires not only dishonour of the cheque and failure to pay after notice, but also a legally enforceable debt or other liability in respect of which the cheque was issued. Although Section 139 raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, that presumption operates only unless the contrary is proved. On the facts pleaded in the complaint, the alleged liability arose from professional services rendered by the complainant's sons, not by the complainant herself, and there was no arrangement or service relationship between the complainant and the petitioner. The complaint thus disclosed, at the threshold, absence of the essential foundational requirement for prosecution under Section 138.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed, and the petition succeeded.

---