Holder in due course may file cheque dishonour complaint, and weak defence cannot justify quashing at threshold.

A holder in due course can maintain a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the statute permits a complaint by the payee or holder in due course, and the section 118(g) presumption supports that status unless rebutted. A defence raised by the accused that does not displace the statutory ingredients of the offence is not a valid basis for quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so threshold interference was unwarranted. The order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the complaints were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a holder in due course can maintain a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the accused's defence could justify quashing of the criminal prosecution under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a holder in due course can maintain a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits a complaint in writing by the payee or the holder in due course. A holder in due course is entitled to possess the cheque and recover the amount due under it. The presumption under section 118(g) further supports the position that the holder is to be treated as a holder in due course unless the contrary is proved.

Conclusion: Yes. A holder in due course can maintain a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused's defence could justify quashing of the criminal prosecution under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The defence raised by the accused did not negate the ingredients of the offence at the threshold and could not be treated as a ground for quashing criminal proceedings. The High Court's interference at the stage of quashing was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: No. The prosecution could not be quashed on the basis of the defence raised by the accused.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the order quashing the criminal proceedings was set aside, leaving the complaints to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A holder in due course is entitled to institute a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a defence raised by the accused that does not displace the statutory ingredients of the offence is not a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.

---