Cheque dishonour complaint maintainability confirmed where timely cheques, proper notice dispatch, and director signatures supported prosecution.
A cheque dishonour complaint was treated as maintainable where five cheques were presented within the statutory period and returned unpaid, even though other cheques were time-barred. Dispatch of statutory notice to the correct address was held sufficient at the threshold, with actual service left to evidence rather than quash proceedings. The complaint was also not defeated for want of authorisation or specific averments against the director, since the filing was authorised, a later board resolution regularised representation, and the director had signed the cheques. The prosecution was therefore permitted to continue, and quashing was refused.
Issues: (i) whether the complaint could proceed in respect of the cheques dishonoured within the statutory period, (ii) whether non-service of statutory notice defeated the complaint at the threshold, and (iii) whether the complaint was unsustainable for want of proper authorisation and averments as against the company director.
Issue (i): whether the complaint could proceed in respect of the cheques dishonoured within the statutory period.
Analysis: Out of the sixteen cheques, eleven were presented beyond the permitted period and could not be relied upon. Five cheques, however, were returned for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement". The existence of time-barred cheques did not affect the maintainability of the complaint with respect to the cheques that were presented in time and dishonoured on merits.
Conclusion: The complaint could proceed in respect of the five cheques dishonoured within the statutory period.
Issue (ii): whether non-service of statutory notice defeated the complaint at the threshold.
Analysis: The notices were dispatched to the correct addresses stated in the complaint. At the preliminary stage, actual service was not required to be finally determined where the drawer's correct address had been used for dispatch. Whether service was ultimately sufficient was a matter to be tested on evidence and not in quash proceedings.
Conclusion: The plea of non-service of notice did not warrant quashing of the complaint.
Issue (iii): whether the complaint was unsustainable for want of proper authorisation and averments as against the company director.
Analysis: The complaint had been filed with authorisation, and a subsequent board resolution authorised another representative after the earlier authorised person had ceased to be available. The director had signed the cheques, and in such circumstances a specific averment that he was in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company was not necessary at the stage of prosecution. The challenge went to trial issues rather than to the existence of a maintainable complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and no ground for quashing was made out.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution under the dishonour of cheque provisions was permitted to continue, and the quash petition failed in its entirety.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the dishonour of cheque provisions, a complaint is not liable to be quashed at the threshold where at least some cheques were presented within time and dishonoured, statutory notice was dispatched to the correct address, and the drawer-director signed the cheques; questions of actual service and representative authority are ordinarily matters for trial unless the complaint is inherently unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
