Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sooraj T. Elenjickal and P.M. Mazna Mansoor, Advs.
For the Respondents: S. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., P. Martin Jose, Thomas P. Kuruvillaand P. Prijith, Advs.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The case involves a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning dishonour of a cheque (!) (!) .
• The accused issued a cheque for Rs. 28,00,000, but prior to its presentation, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000 was paid, which was admitted by the complainant (!) (!) .
• The complainant presented the cheque for the entire amount without obtaining an endorsement for the partial payment made earlier, which is a requirement under Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) (!) .
• The court noted that for a cheque to be valid for the entire amount after partial payments, an endorsement must be obtained before presentation; otherwise, the amount claimed is not legally due at the time of presentation (!) (!) .
• The court emphasized that if the cheque was presented for the full amount without such endorsement, and the partial payment was made earlier, the complaint under Section 138 is not maintainable because the debt or liability for the full amount was not legally due at the time of presentation (!) (!) .
• The court clarified that the proper remedy for the payee in such cases is to file a suit or pursue other legal proceedings to recover the balance amount, rather than initiating a criminal complaint under Section 138 (!) (!) .
• The court observed that the complaint was an abuse of process since the legal requirements for presenting a cheque for the entire amount were not met, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against the accused (!) (!) .
• The proceedings in the criminal case were therefore quashed, and the case was dismissed on the basis that the complaint was not maintainable under the circumstances (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further assistance.