9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney was lent to applicant by her through her husband and relatives. When cheque was presented for the collection, the name of present applicant as payee was written on the cheque. The applicant being a drawer of the cheque, has not denied his signature - It is settled law that once the accused admitted a signature on the cheque in question, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. Thus, as per Section 118(g) of the NI Act, the holder of cheque is presumed to be holder in due course and accused has to prove that the cheque was not issued to the complainant. The present complaint is maintainable by the payee of the cheque, i.e. respondent no. 2. Whether she is not holder in due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminal Procedure. C Be pleased your Lordship quashed and set aside the Criminal Case No. 68391 of 2019 pending before the Ld. Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act Court No. 37, Ahmedabad. 2. Brief facts leading to file the present application are that, the respondent no. 2 has filed criminal complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against the present applicant for dishonour of cheque bearing No. 446680, sum of ₹ 27 lakhs drawn on Kalupur Cooperative Bank, Khokhra Branch, Ahmedabad, which was returned unpaid . The applicant being the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment to the respondent no. 2 within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, as a result of which, the complaint under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has no any locus to file a complaint, since she is not 'holder in due course' as defined under Section 9 of the Act. 6. Strong reliance being placed on the case Jyotindra Motibhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, (SCA No. 956 of 2013) to submit that merely possession of cheque would not suffice but the person in possession of the instrument, must have been in the possession of some consideration. Reiterating the facts of the agreement, learned counsel would further submit that the transaction was with the husband of the complainant and as such the complainant has not lent any money to the applicant and therefore, the cheque found in the possession of the respondent no. 2 is not sufficient to hold that she is in holder in due cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for consideration and the instrument must have been transferred to him before it becomes overdue. 11. In the facts of the present case, the respondent no. 2 has specifically averred in the complaint that the money was lent to applicant by her through her husband and relatives. When cheque was presented for the collection, the name of present applicant as payee was written on the cheque. The applicant being a drawer of the cheque, has not denied his signature. 12. It is settled law that once the accused admitted a signature on the cheque in question, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. Thus, as per Section 118(g) of the NI Act, the holder of cheque is presumed to be ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
