D. Murugesan, J. - The petitioners are the accused in T.R.C. No. 1456 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor. The 1st respondent is the complainant. According to the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 2nd respondent as well as against the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, the 2nd respondent M/s. Ranjith Commercial Company had business dealings with the petitioners in respect of which the petitioners issued a cheque No. 269274 dated 26.10.1998 in favour of the 2nd respondent for Rs. 10 lacs draw on Global Trust Bank Limited, Coimbatore. The 1st respondent purchased the said cheque from 2nd respondent for consideration. Thereafter the 2nd respondent presented the cheque for collection on 20.3.1999 in the capacity of the holder in due course. But the said cheque was returned uncleared on the same date with the endorsement "EXCEEDS ARRANGEMENTS". Therefore, the 1st respondent had preferred the complaint against the petitioners. Challenging the above complaint, the petitioners who were arrayed as he 2nd and 3rd accused have preferred the above petition seeking to quash the complaint.

2. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the cheque was drawn by the 2nd accused the petitioner herein in favour of M/s. Ranjith Commercial Company namely the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused. It is not in dispute that the account is maintained by the petitioners herein in Global Trust Bank Limited, Coimbatore. it is also not disputed that the drawer of the cheque is the petitioner and the payee of the cheque is the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent namely the complainant is neither the payee nor endorsee of the cheque. It is also admitted that the cheque is crossed and also bears the word "account payee". On the admitted facts the payee of the cheque namely the 2nd respondent cannot sell the cheque to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent on such purchase of the cheque cannot be considered as a "holder in due course". Even though in the petition, the petitioners have raised number of grounds, the learned Counsel restricted the argument only to the question as to whether the complainant namely the 1st respondent in this petition can be considered as a "holder in due course" as "person who for consideration became the possessor of the cheque, if payable to bearer" and "payee or endorsee thereof, if payable to order". The learned Counsel submitted that Vijaya Bank is not endorsee of the cheque and that it became only possessor of the cheque for consideration. The learned Counsel would further submit that Vijaya Bank can only by the "holder in due course" if the cheque is payable to bearer. When the cheque is crossed with an endorsement "account payee only" the said cheque cannot be considered as a cheque payable to the bearer also. The learned Counsel would further submit that under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, "a cheque is payable to order if it is payable to a particular person and a cheque is payable to bearer where it is expressed to be payable, or if the endorsement is left blank". The learned Counsel submitted that the instant cheque bears the name of the particular person namely M/s. Ranjith Commercial Company and is also crossed and it also has endorsement "account payee only". Further the learned Counsel submitted that as per Section 126 of the Act "where a cheque is crossed generally, the Banker on whom it is drawn shall not pay it otherwise than to a Banker". The learned Counsel therefore submitted that once a cheque is crossed and once the word "account payee only" are added, the printed from "or bearer" becomes otiose, by the operation of the statute. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the instant cheque cannot be purchased by the complainant and by virtue of such purchase from the 2nd respondent herein, the complainant namely the