The court held that the presumption of a cheque being issued for a legally enforceable debt must be respected, and factual disputes should be resolved at trial, not through pre-trial quashing.

1. This application and section 482 Cr.P.C . has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to exercise inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint pending in the Court of JMFC Jabalpur vide Complaint Case number 503.

Oblique 2019. Has not maintainable.

2. Since none appears for the applicant, therefore, this Court was left with no other option but to go through the grounds raised in the application.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present case in short, are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging inter alia that the complainant entered into an agreement on 17.3.2018 with the wife and son of the accused to purchase the land from accused Ajay Jain. Under the agreement, a huge amount of money was invested by the complainant for purchasing the property from Ajay Jain. Even after investing an amount of Rs.10,10,500/- the agreement could not be materialized and an FIR was lodged against Ajay Jain, which culminated into a Sessions Trial which is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Jabalpur.

4. Vide agreement dated 29.1.2018 the accused entered into an agreement with the accused and resolved that the matter be amicably compromised and under the agreement, the accused issued a cheque drawn on Union Bank of India, Napier Town Branch of Rs.19,35,5000/- dated 30.7.2018 in favour of the complainant by way of compensation for the investment made by her under the agreement dated 17.3.2008.

5. In the month of September the complainant informed the accused that she will be presenting the cheque with her Banker as the validity of the cheque is going to expire in a month of October, 2018. However, the accused requested the complainant not to present the cheque for few days. The complainant after waiting for the whole month of September 2018 deposited the cheque on 18.10.2018, which was received back with return memo of insufficient funds. Accordingly, the complainant issued a notice under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, therefore, the complaint was filed.

6. A ground has been raised by the petitioner in the application that, since the cheque was issued by way of profits which might have accrued in the future, therefore, it was not issued for legally recoverable debt and thus, the complaint is not maintainable.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that whether the cheque was issued to repay the legally recoverable debt or not is a disputed question of fact which can be decided in the trial.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the grounds raised in the application.

9. The Supreme court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513 has held as under :-

8. The issue to be answered here is whether summons and trial notice should have been quashed on the basis of factual defences. The corollary therefrom is what should be the responsibility of the quashing Court and whether it must weigh the evidence presented by the parties, at a pre-trial stage.

10. It is also relevant to bear in mind that the burden of proving that there is no existing debt or liability, is to be discharged in the trial. For a two judges Bench in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd.3, Justice S.N. Variava made the following pertinent observation on this aspect:—

“17. There is therefore no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability was on the respondents. This they have to discharge in the trial. At this stage, merely on the basis of averments in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there