The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the interpretation of the notice requirements under Section 138(b) in relation to the amount specified.

( 1 ) BOTH these petitions Involved the same question of fact and law. The petitioner in both the cases is same person and opposite parties in Petition No. 3542 of 1997 is the wife of the opposite party in Petition No. 847 of 1998. Therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri L. P. Nalthani, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

( 3 ) TWO complaints under Section 138. N. I. Act were filed against the applicant, one each by opposite party of these petitions. It is admitted that the applicant Shailesh Kumar Agrawal and the opposite party, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal are real brothers and opposite party, Smt. Sandhya agrawal is the wife of Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. The two brothers Shailesh Kumar Agrawal and dinesh Kumar Agrawal were partners in the firm M/s. Chhotfwala Bhojnalaya, Swarg Ashram, pauri Garhwal. Thereafter a family settlement on 15. 2. 1995 was taken place and the firm M/s. Chhotlwala was allotted to the share of Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. According to the agreement, some movables were allotted and in respect of the same, it was agreed that the applicant will get rs. 5. 75,000 in four Instalments and that amount was paid by Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. That in the first week of April, 1995, the applicant offered to return Rs. 2. 20. 000 to Dinesh Kumar agrawal in respect of certain other settlement. That accordingly, the applicant issued two cheques : first, for Rs. 1 lac in favour of Smt. Sandhya Agrawal and another cheque for Rs. 1,20,000 in favour of Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. Both the cheques are dated 6. 4. 1995. Both the cheques were presented to the bank and they were returned with the endorsement of insufficient funds vide memo of bank dated 30. 9. 1995. That thereafter Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and Sandhya agrawal sent separate notices dated 10. 10. 1995 through registered post to pay the amount. The said amount was not paid within 15 days of the service of notices and, therefore, two complaints were filed against the applicants, one by each of them under Section 138. N. I. Act. The applicant has made a request for quashing the proceedings of both these complaints.

( 4 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, which is in regard to the Petition no. 3542 of 1997 only, is that family settlement took place between two brothers, the applicant and his brother, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. That amount was payable to Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. That thereafter there was no liability of payment to Smt. Sandhya Agrawal, wife of Dlnesh kumar Agrawal. That, therefore, the cheques in favour of Smt. Sandhya Agrawal was not for the "discharge of any debt or liability against the applicant". That, therefore, no offence under section 138, N. I. Act is made out. That, therefore, a necessary ingredient of Section 138. N. I. Act that the cheque should be in discharge of the debt or liability does not exist in this case. No offence under Section 138, N. I. Act is made out.

( 5 ) I have considered the argument. In my opinion, it is without merit. The reason is that Section 139, N. I. Act reads as follows :

"it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. "

( 6 ) THEREFORE, there is presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque is regarding the discharge of the liability and it is for the applicant to prove the contrary and to rebut this presumption. This can be rebutted by the applicant by evidence only. Therefore, at this stage, there is no ground to quash the complaint. The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. In Maruti Udyog Limited v. Narendra and others, 1999 (]) SCC 113, the Apex Court has held that there is presumption in favour of holder of cheque under section 139, N. I.