Cheque dishonour complaints and statutory presumptions cannot be tested by a roving inquiry at the quashing stage.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed at the pre-trial stage only if the allegations and materials fail to disclose a prima facie case. Where the complaint pleads cheque issuance, dishonour for insufficient funds, service of demand notice, and non-payment within the statutory period, the ingredients of Section 138 are prima facie satisfied. The Section 139 presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability is rebuttable, but ordinarily only through evidence at trial; a court exercising Section 482 jurisdiction cannot conduct a roving enquiry into disputed defences. The complaint and summoning order therefore should not be quashed before trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed at the pre-trial stage by examining whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, despite the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

Analysis: A complaint can be quashed at the threshold only if the allegations and supporting materials do not disclose a prima facie case. Where the complaint alleges issuance of cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, service of demand notice, and non-payment within the statutory period, the ingredients of Section 138 are prima facie made out. Under Section 139, a presumption arises that the cheque was received for discharge of debt or liability, and that presumption is rebuttable only in trial by evidence. The High Court, therefore, could not undertake a roving enquiry into a disputed factual defence at the stage of Section 482 proceedings.

Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order could not be quashed at the pre-trial stage, and the issue of liability had to be decided by the trial court independently.

---