Section 139 presumption sustains cheque dishonour prosecution despite disputed transaction details, leaving rebuttal to trial.

Where the drawer admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, the Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. A discrepancy between the flat numbers mentioned in the complaint and the agreement was treated only as a possible defence, not as a basis to conclude at the threshold that no liability existed. In the absence of material showing a probable defence or manifest mala fides, the High Court declined to exercise quashing jurisdiction. The cheque dishonour complaint and process were therefore not quashed and were left to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and process under the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed on the ground that the cheque transaction did not relate to a legally enforceable debt or liability because of discrepancy in the flat numbers mentioned in the complaint and the agreement.

Analysis: The petition challenged the summoning order in a cheque dishonour prosecution. The signature on the cheques and their issuance were not denied, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant that the cheques were issued for discharge of a debt or liability. That presumption is rebuttable, but rebuttal requires a probable defence to be established in the trial. The discrepancy between the flat numbers in the complaint and the agreement was treated as a matter that may support a defence, but not as a ground to conclude at the threshold that no legally enforceable liability existed. In the absence of material showing the proceedings to be manifestly mala fide or vexatious, the extraordinary quashing jurisdiction was not warranted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner. The complaint and process were held not liable to be quashed, and the matter was left to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer admits issuance and signature on the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates, and a mere asserted discrepancy in surrounding transaction details is insufficient, without a probable defence, to quash a cheque dishonour prosecution at the threshold.

---