ORDER

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.22036/2009 registered against her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to ‘Act’ for short].

3. The sole ground that has been taken before this court seeking quashing of the above said proceedings is that - a prima facie meaningful reading and understanding of the complaint itself filed by the respondent – complainant before the Trial Court reveals that, there is no allegation in the complaint that there exists a legally recoverable debt from the accused. In the absence of such existence of the legally recoverable debt, Section 138 of the Act itself is not attracted.

4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the entire paragraphs in the complaint averments to demonstrate that there was no legally recoverable debt even according to the complaint averments. When such being the case, there cannot be any presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act particularly u/s.1