Maintainability of Section 138 complaint depends on disputed facts; quash petition declined and trial directed.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged in quash proceedings on the ground that the complainant bank was neither the payee nor holder in due course. The court found that the cheque was issued by the accused as authorised signatory of a third-party concern in favour of his own savings account, but the bank's claim that it was tendered with a covering letter for credit and adjustment of dues depended on disputed facts. As the covering letter was not produced, the question of maintainability required evidence and could not be decided under Section 482 CrPC. The parties were therefore left to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the complainant bank was not the payee or holder in due course and the matter required trial.

Analysis: The cheque was issued by the accused in his capacity as authorised signatory of a third party concern in favour of his own savings account, and the bank's case was that it was tendered along with a covering letter requesting credit of the amount and adjustment towards the dues. Since the covering letter was not produced, the crucial question whether the cheque was so tendered, and if so whether the bank could treat itself as holder in due course and maintain the complaint, involved disputed factual issues. Such issues could be resolved only in a full-fledged trial and not in quash proceedings.

Conclusion: Quashing was declined and the parties were directed to proceed to trial.

---