TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 467 of 2019 dated 13.08.2021 as well as order dated 01.08.2019, in Criminal Case No. 68391 of 2019 passed by Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Court No. 37, Ahmedabad by which the Ld. Magistrate Court had ordered to issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. C Be pleased your Lordship quashed and set aside the Criminal Case No. 68391 of 2019 pending before the Ld. Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act Court No. 37, Ahmedabad." 2. Brief facts leading to file the present application are that, the respondent no. 2 has filed criminal complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against the present applicant for dishonour of cheque bearing No. 446680, sum of Rs. 27 lakhs dra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that the cheque in question was given to husband of the complainant and thereafter, the respondent no. 2 misused the disputed cheque. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the cheque was not given to respondent no. 2 towards legally enforceable debt and she has no any locus to file a complaint, since she is not 'holder in due course' as defined under Section 9 of the Act. 6. Strong reliance being placed on the case Jyotindra Motibhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, (SCA No. 956 of 2013) to submit that merely possession of cheque would not suffice but the person in possession of the instrument, must have been in the possession of some consideration. Reiterating the facts of the agreement, learned counsel would further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned in it became payable, and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derived his title." 10. The definition makes it clear that to be a holder in due course, a person must be a holder for consideration and the instrument must have been transferred to him before it becomes overdue. 11. In the facts of the present case, the respondent no. 2 has specifically averred in the complaint that the money was lent to applicant by her through her husband and relatives. When cheque was presented for the collection, the name of present applicant as payee was written on the cheque. The applicant being a drawer of the cheque, has not denied his signature. 12. It is settled law that ....