Presumption of service in cheque dishonour cases bars quashing when notice was sent to the correct address.

Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not liable to be quashed because the statutory demand notice had been sent by registered post to the correct address, giving rise to a presumption of service. A bare denial of receipt, or postal endorsements suggesting the addressee was unavailable, did not displace that presumption at the threshold; rebuttal required evidence. The cheque return memo and the alleged insufficiency of dishonour grounds likewise raised factual questions requiring trial and proof. The complaint therefore disclosed a prima facie case, and interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deserved to be quashed on the grounds that the statutory notice was not duly served and that the cheque return memo did not disclose dishonour in the manner required for prosecution.

Analysis: The notice for demand was dispatched to the correct address by registered post. In such a situation, service is normally presumed, and a mere assertion of non-receipt does not justify quashing at the threshold. The effect of postal endorsements showing that the addressee was not available, and the question whether the presumption of service stands rebutted, are matters to be examined on evidence. The same approach applies to the cheque return reason relied upon by the applicant; whether the cheques were in fact dishonoured in a manner negating liability is a matter requiring trial and proof. The complaint was therefore supported by a prima facie case and did not warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cognizance order failed, and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not liable to be quashed at this stage.

---