INDERMEET KAUR, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of the complaint No.1535/1 titled as Sh.Ravi Malhotra vs. Sh.Prajan Kumar Jain filed under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Complainant is Ravi Malhotra. Prajan Kumar Jain has been arrayed as the accused.

2. The short point raised in this petition is that the two cheques i.e. cheque no.7375535 dated 25.3.2005 for Rs.5 lakhs and cheque no.7375536 dated 30.4.2005 for Rs.5 lakhs do not come within the ambit of a ‘legally enforceable debt’. The said cheques had been issued for the discharge of a liability arising out of an agreement dated 14.6.2000; and having been issued on 25.3.2005 and 30.4.2005 were for the discharge of debt which had become time barred. The complaint is thus liable to be quashed. 3. To appreciate this submission salient paragraphs of the complaint filed by Ravi Malhotra are reproduced.: “2. That by an agreement dated 14.06.2000, entered into by the complainant with the accused and his brother, Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, to purchase the agricultural land measuring 12 Bighas and 03 Biswas, bearing Mustatil No.54, Killa No.14/2 (3-12), 17 (2-19), 7 (4-17), 14/1 (0-15), situated at village Bharthal, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, for the consideration of rupees 2 Crores 30 Lakhs. The complainant paid a sum of rupees 30 Lakhs to the accused and his brother Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, who were jointly maintained as Party No.1 in the said agreement.

3. That after sometimes the parties agreed to terminate the agreement and the accused alongwith his brother, Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, promised to return the advance money of rupees 30 Lakhs paid by the complainant to the accused and his brother. This settlement took place on 26.01.2005, whereby the accused and his brother acknowledged to pay the

balance amount in short time and the agreement was terminated.

4. That in the discharge of his liability of debt arising out of the agreement dated 14.6.2000 between the accused and his brother, Shri Vijay Kumar Jain on the one hand and the complainant on the other, the accued agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) and in lieu thereof the accued issued two post dated cheques drawn on the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Sector-3, Krishna Complex, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu in favour of the complainant. The details whereof are as under:-

1. 7375535 dated 25.3.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/-. 1. 7375536 dated 30.4.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Vinnay Aggarwal 162 (2009) DLT 23 to support his submission that the cheques issued in lieu of a time barred debt does not come within the definition of a ‘legally enforceable debt’ as is contained in the Explanation of Section 138 of the NI Act. Cheques issued for the discharge of such a time barred debt cannot become the subject matter of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act; the agreement in this case having terminated on 14.6.2000 and cheques having been issued almost five years later i.e. on 25.3.2005 and 30.4.2005, there being no enlargement of period of limitation, it is clear that at this point of time the liability, if any, qua the accused had become time barred. Reliance has also been placed upon Sasseriyil Joseph vs. Devassia 2001 Crl.LJ 24 to support this submission. It is further submitted that the presumption which is contained in Section 139 of the NI Act only raises a presumption that the said cheque has been issued for the discharge of a debt or liability and the existence of a legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under the aforestated provision of law. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54.

5. These submissions have countered by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that t