P SUMATHI Vs. M P ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the private complaint filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing of this petition may be stated as follows: The accused, who is the sole proprietrix of Velmathi Textiles, had purchased yarns on credit from Sri Balaji Modern Yarns, Erode and for the said liability, towards the sale purchase, had issued four cheques to Sri Balaji Modern Yarns. Sri Balaji Modern Yarns having received the cheques had made an endorsement in favour of the complainant. The total sum of the three cheques amounts to Rs.3,24,400/- and the fourth cheque relates to Rs.1,22,400/-. The complainant presented the three cheques totalling to Rs.3,24,400/- on 13.10.2000 and the same were dishonoured for want of funds. Hence after observing all the formalities, the present complaint has been filed.

(3.) The present petition for quashing has been filed mainly on the ground that there is absolutely no debt or liability for the accused towards the complainant and hence provisions under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act would not be attracted. However, it has to be seen that 138 Negotiable Instruments Act does not authorise prosecution against the drawee but also holder in due course. But the same has been countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that in the present case the complainant cannot be termed to be a holder in due course since the cheque was not endorsed directly by the drawer to the complainant, but as a matter of fact, it has been endorsed in favour of a third person, who in turn had endorsed it to a fourth person and the fourth person had in turn, endorsed it to the complainant and as such, he cannot be deemed as a holder in due course, but may at best be stated to be a holder.