9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on the status of the complainant as the payee or holder in due course. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arguing that the complainant was neither the payee nor the holder in due course of the cheques. The complaints were filed by the respondent as an executor under his deceased father's will, who was the payee of the cheques. The court examined the definition of payee under Section 7 and holder in due course under Section 9 of the Act. It was established that only the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint under Section 138 after issuing a notice demanding payment to the drawer of the cheque. The court noted that the respondent, not being the payee named in the cheques, did not meet the criteria to be considered a payee. Additionally, to qualify as a holder in due course, the respondent needed to have come into possession of the cheques for consideration, which was not proven in the complaint. The court highlighted that being an executor under a will does not automatically confer the status of a holder in due course. The absence of proof regarding the genuineness of the will mentioned in the complaint raised doubts about the respondent's claim as an executor and holder in due course. The court emphasized that without a clear adjudication on the validity of the will, prosecuting the petitioner would be premature. The court intervened, quashing the complaints as they were not filed by the payee or holder in due course, preventing unnecessary harassment and wastage of resources in futile litigation. In conclusion, the court allowed the criminal miscellaneous cases, holding that the complaints lacked merit as they were not initiated by the payee or holder in due course, leading to the quashing of C. C. Nos. 971 of 1993, 974 of 1993, and 207 of 1994.
|
