Cheque dishonour process: settlement-issued cheques and stop-payment instructions attracted the Section 139 presumption, leaving disputed defences for trial.

In a cheque dishonour complaint, admitted signature on cheques issued under consent settlement terms and dishonoured on stop-payment instructions disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate was required only to see whether the complaint contained the ingredients of the offence; disputed defences such as coercion, duress, or challenge to the settlement had to be tested at trial. The statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the holder, and the petitioner was left to rebut it in evidence. The process orders were therefore upheld and interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 disclosed a prima facie case for issuance of process, and whether the petitioner could avoid liability by contending that the cheques were issued under a consent settlement and that the underlying debt or liability was not legally enforceable.

Analysis: The cheques were admittedly signed by the petitioner and issued pursuant to consent terms by which he undertook to pay the settlement amount and not to instruct stop payment. The cheques were presented within time, dishonoured on stop-payment instructions, and statutory notice was issued. At the stage of process, the Magistrate was only required to see whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offence, not to decide disputed defences such as coercion, duress, or the truth of the settlement. The presumption under Section 139 applied in favour of the holder, and the petitioner was required to rebut it in trial. The facts relied on by the petitioner were held distinguishable from the authorities cited on his behalf, while the settlement-based cheques and the stop-payment instructions supported the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The complaints disclosed the ingredients of the offence under Section 138, and the orders issuing process did not warrant interference. The issue was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the complainant/respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of issuance of process in a cheque dishonour complaint, admitted signature on the cheque, issuance pursuant to settlement terms, and dishonour on stop-payment instructions attract the statutory presumption of liability, leaving disputed defences to be tested at trial.

---