9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of process under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Lack of details regarding payee or holder in due course in the complaint. Analysis: The petitioners, who are the accused in Criminal Cases, sought to quash the process issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaints against the accused were for dishonoring cheques issued for obtaining goods, an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitions raised a common question concerning the same parties and were disposed of collectively. The accused were involved in transactions for the supply of caustic soda, where payments were made through cheques that were subsequently dishonored, leading to the filing of complaints. The complaints alleged non-payment despite notice and sought action under Section 138 of the Act. In the detailed analysis of each miscellaneous criminal application, it was noted that the complaints were filed due to dishonored cheques issued by the accused for the purchase of caustic soda. The complaints specified the amounts, dates, and numbers of the cheques, along with the subsequent dishonor and notice given to the accused. The complaints highlighted the lack of payment by the accused despite repeated demands, leading to legal action under Section 138. The main argument raised by the petitioners was the absence of details regarding the payee or holder in due course in the complaints. The complainant, who was the Manager of the trading corporation, was not explicitly identified as the payee or holder in due course of the cheques in question. The petitioners contended that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that cognizance of such offenses can only be taken upon a complaint by the payee or holder in due course. The definition of 'payee' and 'holder in due course' was cited to emphasize the necessity of explicitly mentioning the payee or holder in due course in the complaint. The Court, after considering the arguments, agreed with the petitioners that the complaints lacked essential details regarding the payee or holder in due course of the cheques. As per Section 142 of the Act, cognizance of offenses under Section 138 can only be taken based on a complaint by the payee or holder in due course. Since the complaints did not clearly establish the complainant as the payee or holder in due course, the Court concluded that cognizance should not have been taken. Therefore, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the process against the accused on the ground of insufficient details regarding the payee or holder in due course in the complaints.
|
