Cheque Dishonour Complaint Lacks Locus Without Payee or Holder-in-Due-Course Averment, making cognizance unsustainable.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must positively aver that the complainant is the payee or holder in due course of the cheque; without that foundational assertion, the statutory locus for cognizance under Section 142 is not made out. Where the complaint is silent on who the payee or holder in due course is, the court cannot assume compliance with the mandatory requirement for a written complaint by an authorised person. On that footing, cognizance was held unsustainable and the process issued against the accused was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable when it did not contain a clear averment that the complainant was the payee or holder in due course of the cheque, and whether cognizance could be taken on such a complaint.

Analysis: Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 permits cognizance of an offence under Section 138 only on a written complaint by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. The complaint was found to be silent on this essential aspect and did not disclose who the payee or holder in due course was. In the absence of a positive averment establishing the complainant's locus under the statute, the foundational requirement for taking cognizance was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be entertained and the process issued against the petitioners was liable to be quashed.

---