Cheque dishonour complaints require payee or holder-in-due-course status; a deceased payee's spouse needs lawful entitlement.

Cheque-dishonour proceedings may be initiated only by the payee or a holder in due course entitled in their own name to possess the cheque and recover its amount. A deceased payee's spouse cannot issue a statutory demand notice or maintain a complaint merely by virtue of the relationship where she is not named as payee, has no endorsement, and lacks lawful authority, such as a succession certificate, probate, letters of administration, or other judicial determination enabling full discharge to the drawer. The notes state that this absence creates an express bar to cognizance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the spouse of a deceased cheque payee, without an endorsement or authority establishing entitlement, can issue a statutory demand notice and maintain a complaint for cheque dishonour.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confines the demand and complaint for cheque dishonour to the payee or holder in due course. A holder must be entitled in their own name both to possess the cheque and to recover its amount. The complainant was not named as payee, had no endorsement in her favour, and did not establish authority through a succession certificate, probate, letters of administration, or other judicial determination enabling her to give the drawer a full discharge. The Magistrate issued process on the incorrect premise that the cheques had been issued to the complainant, without determining whether she satisfied the statutory eligibility requirement. This constituted an express legal bar to cognizance and warranted exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The deceased payee's spouse was neither the payee nor a holder in due course and could not maintain the cheque-dishonour complaints without lawful authority establishing her entitlement.

---