The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, creates a liability on the drawer of the cheque, and the burden of proof is on the accused to establish a probable defense to rebut the presumption.

Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of Complaint Case - Section 138 - 139, 56 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which creates a presumption that the holder of a cheque has received the cheque for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The court also considered the petitioner's argument regarding part-payment and endorsement on a negotiable instrument under Section 56. The court referred to the Supreme Court cases of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat to highlight the presumption under Section 139 and the burden of proof on the accused to establish a probable defense to rebut the presumption.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash a complaint case for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the issuance of a cheque for a loan amount. The petitioner argued that part of the loan amount had been paid, and therefore, the complaint should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, creates a liability on the drawer of the cheque unless evidence is adduced to rebut the presumption. The court also noted that the burden of proof is on the accused to establish a probable defense to rebut the presumption.
Issues: The issues involved the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the issuance of a cheque for discharge of debt, and the burden of proof on the accused to establish a probable defense to rebut the presumption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, creates a liability on the drawer of the cheque, and the burden of proof is on the accused to establish a probable defense to rebut the presumption.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and found that no case of quashing the complaint was made out, based on the available material.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks to call for record and quash the Complaint Case No.1740/2021 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 titled as Sameer Sondhi Vs Satinderjeet Singh.

2. The averments made in the complaint are as under:

a) In the month of June, 2019, the petitioner approached the complainant/respondent herein and requested for a friendly loan of Rs.9,00,000/-.

b) It is stated that considering the financial difficulties and friendly relations with the petitioner, the complainant advanced a loan for a sum of Rs. Rs. 9,00,000/-.

c) It is stated that in the month of December, 2019, the petitioner/accused again approached the complainant and requested for another friendly loan for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is stated that the complainant advanced another friendly loan for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is stated that out of Rs.6,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was given through RTGS and Rs.1,10,000/- was given in cash.

d) It is stated that in discharge of his liability towards the complainant, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.001650 dated 25.03.2021 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on the Central Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi in favour of the complainant/respondent.

e) It is stated that, subsequently, the said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment with HDFC Bank Ltd., Meera Bagh, New Delhi. It is stated that the said cheque was returned unpaid with a remark "Exceeds arrangement" vide cheque returning memo dated 12.04.2021. It is stated that, thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.05.2021, calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, and it was stated that on failing to pay the said amount, legal proceedings will be instituted against the petitioner. The notice was duly served on the petitioner, however, the payment was not made by the petitioner. On 11.06.2021, the Complaint Case bearing No.1740/2021 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 was registered.

3. The Magistrate vide order dated 29.10.2021, after recording pre-summoning evidence, issued summons to the petitioner herein. On 18.12.2021, the petitioner appeared before Court and was granted bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount. The notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was framed. The petitioner had admittedly given an outline of defence in the Court and was directed to file the physical document before the next date of hearing. On 18.12.2021, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted before the learned Trial Court that he has no objection if the complainant/respondent is cross-examined by the petitioner/accused under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881. accordingly, the complainant/respondent was directed to be present physically in the Court so that the complainant can be cross-examined by the petitioner/accused and the evidence shall be recorded as per the Delhi High Court VC Rules, 2021.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, has preferred the instant petition by stating as under:

a) It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant/respondent has not placed on record any documentary proof to establish that he has advanced a cash payment for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as loan.

b) It was submitted that the petitioner gave instructions to his nephew Mr. Gurjyot Singh, who deposited a sum of Rs.2,69,000/- through UPI (Unified Payment Interface) on various dates in the bank account of the wife of the complainant/respondent.

c) It was submitted that the details of the payment made by the nephew of the petitioner in the bank account of the wife of the complainant through UPI (Unified Payment Interface) has been given in the petition which reads as under:

BaNK OF THE PETITONER'S NEPHEW

aCCOUNT NO. OF THE PETITONER'S NEPHEW

aMOUNT

DaTE

IN FaVOUR OF

MODE

CENTRaL BaNK OF INDIa

3063349264

20,000/-

09.06.2020

MEENU SONDHI IN HER aCCOUNT