TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscellaneous cases is the accused in all the three cases and the respondent is the complainant. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act ) are filed by the respondent against the petitioner and process was issued to him. The petitioner seeks to quash the complaints on the ground that those are not maintainable as the respondent/complainant is not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 1993, but those were dishonoured. Notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered by the cheques was issued on October 13, 1993. But, there was no positive response from the side of the accused. Hence, complaints were filed. 3. Section 142 of the Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint in writing made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the drawer of the cheque. 4. The respondent/complainant cannot be treated as a payee. A payee is defined under Section 7 of the Act as a person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid. 5. The respondent on his own showing is not a payee and the cheques were not drawn in his name. He admits in the complaint that the payee in whose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has paid consideration to his father and thereby he became the holder in due course. As already stated, the allegation of the complainant is only that he was an executor under the will of his father and so he is entitled to collect the proceeds of the cheques. The executor of the will cannot be treated as the holder in due course. 7. The will mentioned in the complaint executed by the father of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
