A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed if the evidence produced to rebut the presumption under Section 139 is disputed, as such evidence must be tested during the trial.

JUDGMENT

1. By filing the present petitions under article 226 of the constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaints impugned in the present petitions.

2. The respondent no.2 herein, had submitted complaints for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gandhidham. The learned Magistrate had initially recorded the complaints as criminal inquiries under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the respondent-complainant was directed to bring the further evidence on 17.10.2025. However, on 29.09.2025, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and ordered issuance of process against him for the offence in question. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present petitions.

3. Heard learned advocate Shri. Chitrajeet Upadhyay appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the complaints had been lodged by the respondent against the petitioner by suppressing the material fact. It is stated in the complaints that the petitioner herein had purchased some goods from the respondent and in discharge of the payment to be made by the petitioner to the respondent, the disputed cheques were issued by the petitioner, which had been dishonored. However, in fact, a Memorandum of Understanding had been entered into between the petitioner and one Pranav Narsingh Agrawal, whereby the petitioner was to obtain loan worth Rs.10 crores from the said Pranav Narsingh Agrawal and a loan agreement in that regard was also entered into between the parties. In furtherance of the said loan agreement, the petitioner had issued 20 disputed cheques in favour of the respondent-company towards security. However, thereafter, for some reasons, the deal could not go through and therefore no loan as agreed between the parties was disbursed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had requested the respondent-company to cancel and return the disputed cheques to him to which the petitioner had received a reply on behalf of the respondent that the disputed cheques had been misplaced. It is further mentioned in the said letter dated 13.01.2025, in case those cheques are found in future, it is confirmed that those cheques are null and void and there is no amount payable to the respondent from the petitioner. All these facts have been concealed by the respondent-complainant at the time of lodging the complaint in question as well as at the time of recording the verification before the Learned Trial Court. He further submitted that the letter dated 13.01.2025 received by the petitioner from the respondent makes it very clear that the cheques in question were not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt nor any such debt was due from the petitioner to the respondent. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not operate against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the aforestated facts were already brought to the notice of the respondent while replying to the Statutory Notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner. However, still the respondent has chosen to conceal these facts from the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that it may be argued on behalf of the respondent that the letter dated 13.01.2025 is forged. However, though the said letter was brought to the notice of the respondent, no action whatsoever has been taken against the said letter on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the argument that the letter dated 13.01.2025 is a fabricat