ANAGHA PRASAD Vs. M.C. ABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of fact and law arise in these three cases. Hence, they are heard together and disposed by this common order.

(2.) Legal puzzles arising herein for determination are as follows: i. Whether dishonour of a cheque, drawn by a person during minority for discharging a debt or liability towards another, will invite an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ii. Does it make any difference if the cheque was a post- dated one and its dishonour takes place after the quondam minor attained majority

(3.) In order to find out answers to these questions, we shall consider the skeletal facts in these cases. Petitioner in these cases are the accused in three different private complaints filed by the 1st respondent before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur. In all the three complaints, the offence alleged against the petitioner is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, "the NI Act"). 1st respondent/complainant is the Managing Partner of a firm, conducting a business by name Persian Jewellery, Nilambur. Petitioner's mother was an employee in the said firm. While so, the petitioner, her mother and brother approached the 1st respondent seeking financial help for the petitioner to pursue study in an engineering college in Tamil Nadu. They required about Rs. 2,50,000/- as fees for admission to the college and the hostel. 1st respondent paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner for meeting the initial expenses. Thereafter, on 08.08.2010, the petitioner again approached the 1st respondent and requested to lend Rs. 1,00,000/- more for her study. Petitioner made the 1st respondent believe that the entire amount borrowed from him would be repaid before 10.01.2011 as she was sure of getting the education loan applied for. On 12.07.2010, the petitioner, her brother and mother again approached the 1st respondent and requested for advancing money. As agreed earlier, an agreement was executed between the parties. As per the terms of the agreement the total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- demanded and received by the petitioner, including Rs. 1,00,000/- later received by her, should be repaid on or before 10.01.2011. It was further agreed that if the petitioner did not repay the money, a portion of the property belonging to them should be conveyed to the 1st respondent. On that assurance, on 08.08.2010, 1st respondent advanced to the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, thereby she got the entire amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the 1st respondent. However, the petitioner did not fulfil her promise to pay back money promptly. Later, on 14.01.2011, the petitioner with her brother and mother again approached the 1st respondent and the petitioner acknowledged her liability. It was represented by the petitioner that she got the education loan sanctioned. Petitioner paid Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st respondent on the said date. Thereafter three cheques were issued for the remaining liability of Rs. 2,40,000/- on 14.01.2011 by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. One cheque was for Rs. 1,50,000/. Another one was for Rs. 80,000/- and yet another one for Rs. 10,000/-. All of them were drawn on 14.01.2011 with a post date 31.01.2011. When the cheques were presented for collection, they were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner. 1st respondent caused to issue the statutory notices. Even after receiving notices, the amounts were not paid. Hence, three prosecutions were launched.