Defenses to a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, such as duress and lack of consideration, are triable issues that cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') to quash the proceedings in C.C.382/2015 pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Turuvur.

2. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein is the sole accused and the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

3. As per the complaint, the allegations against the petitioner, are as follows: The 2nd respondent herein filed C.C.382/2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvur alleging that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 on 5/3/2014 from the 2nd respondent and issued a cheque bearing No.000004, dt.18/4/2015 towards part satisfaction of the debt. The 2nd respondent had presented the cheque for encashment. The said cheque was sent for clearance which was returned vide memo dt.22/4/2015 without making any payment, for the reason that the cheque was stopped on the ground of lost/theft, through online/net banking. After getting information regarding the dishonour of the said cheque, the 2nd respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 25/4/2015 and the same notice was received and issued belated reply dt.14/5/2015 and failed to pay the amount, as such the present complaint has been filed and the learned Magistrate found that there is sufficient material to proceed with the case for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act against the petitioner herein.

4. Whereas, the case of the petitioner is that, when the husband of the petitioner having financial problems and to incur the medical expenses of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, approached one Sindhu Srinu and requested to arrange financial assistance of Rs.1, 00, 000.00. On that, said Srinu advanced Rs.50, 000.00 and obtained blank promissory notes and cheques from the husband of the petitioner and on the next day, said Srinu came to their home and asked to return the amount of Rs.50, 000.00 which was given to them as he was in urgent need of money, without returning the said blank promissory note and cheque. Knowing that the petitioner is a Government employee, stating that he will arrange the amount through third parties, said Srinu obtained blank pronotes and cheques from them and handed over the same to third parties. While the matter stood thus, on 3/3/2015, the said Srinu along with his men, illegally detained the petitioner and her husband in their house, forcibly had taken HDFC bank cheque books bearing cheque Nos. 000001 to 000025 and 001526 to 001535 and S.B.I cheque books belong to the husband of the petitioner bearing cheque Nos.847903 to 847913 and from 847915 to 847942 and 847944 to 848000 and also the blank promissory notes and obtained their signatures forcibly. Immediately the petitioner and her husband made a complaint to their respective banks on 4/3/2015 not to honour the cheques and made a complaint to the S.H.O., Tiruvur Police Station on 6/3/2015, but the Police had not taken any action. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Tahsildar, Tiruvur stating that the 2nd respondent was doing money lending business and to take appropriate action against him. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Tiruvur issued a notice to the 2nd respondent and his men on 2/2/2016, but they did not turn up and the petitioner gave another complaint to the Police on 9/2/2016. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 9009 of 2016 on the file of this Court for not registering the F.I.R. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the same directing the Police Authorities to take suitable action. But, no response from the Police. Hence, the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings in C.C.382/2015 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvur.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cheques had not been issued by the petitioner to discharge