JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged the complaint filed against them by the respondent under section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the court of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu and also order dated 31.08.2017 vide which Judicial Magistrate after taking the cognizance of the offence have issued process against the petitioners. 2. A complaint alleging the commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'N.I. Act') was filed against the petitioners' company alleging that the petitioners' company had issued a cheque bearing No. 085839, dated 17.05.2017 for an amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs drawn on the Axis Bank, Jammu to the respondent in discharge of its liability. This cheque was returned by their Banker with the endorsement 'insufficient Funds' vide Memo dated 18.05.2017. The respondent, thereafter, served notice of demand upon the petitioners under the Act on 14.06.2017, demanding the payment towards the dishonored cheque to be made with in fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the notice, though the notice dated 14.06.2017 was served upon the petitioners who refused to accept the same. 3. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner No. 2 approached the complainant and assured him that payment of the aforesaid amount would be made to them during the last week of July, 2017 and requested the respondent not to proceed with any further action on the basis of that notice. The respondent submits that on this assurance they did not proceed to file a complaint against the petitioners. As no payment towards the cheque was made to complainant, accordingly, the complainant again presented the cheque before its bank, J&K Bank, Govindsar Branch, Kathua. The same was dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 24.07.2017 with there mark “Customer has not issued the cheque”. The respondent after receiving cash memo again sent legal notice dated 11.08.2017 to the accused persons who again refused to accept the same. The petitioners, thereafter, failed to make payment within stipulated period, as such, the respondent filed the complaint within the statutory period from the date of cause of action. 4. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 31.08.2017 by which cognizance has been taken and proceedings initiated in the complaint on the ground that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance in highly defective complaint under section 138 of the Act. 4. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 31.08.2017 by which cognizance has been taken and proceedings initiated in the complaint on the ground that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance in highly defective complaint under section 138 of the Act. The complaint has been filed without service of the mandatory notice as prescribed under section 138 of the Act. The notice dated 10th August, 2019 was neither served nor received by the petitioners and the learned Magistrate without considering these facts has issued process against the petitioners. The complaint does not disclose any details of liability in discharge of which the cheque was issued, therefore, the cognizance has been wrongly taken. It is also submitted that the cheque in question, was not issued by the petitioners in discharge of any debt or liability as the cheque was obtained by the respondent only to encash the same using credentials of the respondent in obtaining a contract for T-74R but since these contracts were not allotted to them, therefore, no liability existed. The respondent had thus failed to substantiate any reason or justification with regard to legally enforceable debt or liability, therefore, cognizance has been taken in mechanical manner which is perverse and liable to be quashed. 5. It is also contended by the petitioners that the respondent had obtained a signed blank cheque from them which would only be encashed provided the petitioners by using credentials of the respondent succeeded in allotment of contract. The cheque was not issued in discharge of civil liability, therefore, the respondent could not present the same to Bank for payment. The respondent is thus using these proceedings under section 138 of the N.I. Act, only for harassing the petitioners. 6. The provisions of Section 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act regarding dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds, etc., being relevant reads as under: “138. The respondent is thus using these proceedings under section 138 of the N.I. Act, only for harassing the petitioners. 6. The provisions of Section 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act regarding dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds, etc., being relevant reads as under: “138. Dishonoured of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability]. 139. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability]. 139. Presumption in favour of holder: 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”. 9. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments including cheques in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same”. 7. Thus, the offence under section 138 of the Act is constituted when the cheque drawn by a person and on an account maintained by him with a banker for the payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt is returned by the bank unpaid because the amount is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. 8. The Apex Court in “NEPC Micon Ltd. & Ors. v. Magma Leasing Ltd.” (1999) 4 SCC 253 held that: “...In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that even though Section 138 is a penal statute, it is the duty of the Court to interpret it consistent with the legislative intent and purpose so as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. As stated above, Section 138 of the Act has created a contractual breach as an offence and the legislative purpose is to promote efficacy of banking and of ensuring that in commercial or contractual transactions cheques are not dishonoured and credibility in transacting business through cheques is maintained....”. 9. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments including cheques in financial transactions. 9. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments including cheques in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same. 10. The contention of the petitioners that a second successive default in payment of cheque amount is impermissible. The issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court in 'MSR leather v. S. Palaniappan &Anr.,' (2013) 1 SCC 177 in which it has been held that: “...A prosecution based on a second or successive default in payment of the cheque amount should not be impermissible simply because no prosecution based on the first default which was followed by statutory notice and a failure to pay had not been launched”. “No real or qualitative difference exists between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and another, where the prosecution is deferred till the cheque presented a gain gets dishonoured for the second or successive time”. 11. The other ground of challenge of the petitioners is that they had signed blank cheque to the respondent and the same could not be encashed as the petitioners have not used the credentials of the respondent for allotment of the project. This contention of the petitioners also does not survive in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in ' Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar', Criminal Appeal No. 230-231 of 2019, decided on 06.02.2019, whereby it has been held that: “38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 39. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent-accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. 39. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent-accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. The second question is also answered in the negative. 40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt”. 12. The questions regarding whether the petitioners had issued the cheque in furtherance of contract or pursuant to a Memo of Understanding executed between the parties or the fact that the cheque presented for payment was in discharge of any debt or any liability cannot be determined by this Court in these proceedings, these defences are available to the petitioners, before the trial Court and its veracity can only be determined during the Trial of the case. 13. The Supreme Court in 'M/s. Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Ahuja & Anr.,' 2019 Supreme Court Online 2086 has held that: “5. In our opinion, the High Court has muddled the entire issue. The averment in the complaint does indicate that the signed cheques were handed over by the accused to the complainant. The cheques were given by way of security, is a matter of defence. Further, it was not for the discharge of any debt or any liability is also a matter of defence. The relevant facts to countenance the defence will have to be proved - that such security could not be treated as debt or other liability of the accused. That would be a triable issue. We say so because, handing over of the cheques by way of security per se would not extricate the accused from the discharge of liability arising from such cheques”. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications.