Court upholds complainant as holder in due course in dishonoured cheque case, dismisses applicant's petition.

The court dismissed the applicant's petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal case related to dishonour of a cheque. The court held that the complainant, who had filed the complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act, could be considered a holder in due course based on the presumption under relevant sections of the Act. The court emphasized that the issue of holder in due course status requires evidence and cannot be prejudged at the initial stage. The court found no error in the lower courts' decisions and allowed the applicant to raise defenses during the trial.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of order passed by Additional Sessions Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and the criminal case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal case related to dishonour of a cheque. The respondent had filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant for non-payment of a cheque. The applicant contended that the complainant was not a holder in due course as defined under Section 9 of the Act. The applicant argued that the cheque was given to the complainant's husband and not to her directly, alleging misuse of the cheque by the complainant. The applicant relied on a previous case to support the claim that mere possession of the cheque is not sufficient to establish holder in due course status.

The court noted that the complainant had averred in the complaint that the money was lent to the applicant through her husband and relatives, and the cheque was given by the applicant to discharge the liability. The court referred to Section 9 of the Act which defines a holder in due course as a person who possesses the instrument for consideration before it becomes overdue. The court highlighted that once the accused admits the signature on the cheque, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act favors the complainant. The court cited a previous judgment stating that the holder of the cheque is presumed to have received it in discharge of a debt or liability.

The court emphasized that at the initial stage, the issue of whether the complainant is a holder in due course cannot be prejudged and requires evidence to be considered after recording. The court held that the defense regarding a legally enforceable liability or debt cannot be examined at this stage. The court distinguished a previous case where the payee was different from the present case's complainant. Ultimately, the court found no error in the view taken by the revisional court and the trial court in issuing the process. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the applicant to raise the plea before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

---