Minors are not liable to be prosecuted or punished under the Negotiable Instruments Act for offences committed while they were minors.

This petition has been filed praying to call for the records in C.C.No.852 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore and quash the same, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The averments of the petition are that the first petitioner is the sister and the second petitioner is her minor brother; that her father and mother were running a Partnership firm under the name and style of 'Sreevari Engineering Traders'; that both the petitioners have admitted the benefits of the aforesaid partnership; that it appears that her father gave a cheque to the respondent herein drawn on The Karur Vysya Bank, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore in the year 1998, which was a blank cheque given by way of security and not towards the discharge of any lawful debt or obligation; that the cheque was drawn by the Partnership Firm, represented by her father; that after 2000, her father did not operate the account any more and the account became unused.

3. The petitioners would further submit that all of a sudden, in the year 2002, the respondent herein appears to have filled up a fictitious date in the cheque and presented it for collection; that since the transaction for which the said cheque was given as security had already been satisfactorily closed, her father did not bother to check the account, and therefore, the cheque was dishonoured; that the respondent herein issued a notice in this regard on 6.9.2002 and reply was sent by the petitioners on 15.9.2002; that during the first week of December 2002, the petitioners herein received summons in C.C.No.852/2002, which was launched against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent herein before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and the first hearing was fixed on 6.1.2003. On such averments, the petitioners would seek for the relief extracted supra on the following grounds:-

(a) that the cheque in question was issued when both the petitioners were minors; (b) that u/s.10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract by or against the minor is void and unenforceable; (c) that the proceedings u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not the proceedings under the IPC, stricto sensu and that they are the proceedings under the special enactment; (d) that such a contract can never be enforceable against the minors and therefore, it is totally void, without jurisdiction and void ab initio; and (e) that the cheque has been issued only as security and not for the discharge of any lawful debt or obligation, and therefore, the proceedings u/s. 138 of the Act are not maintainable.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it would be submitted that he filed a complaint against M/s.Sreevari Engineering Traders in which the petitioners, along with their father and mother, are the partners; that as required by law, he had to implead all the partners of the first accused firm, who are fully aware of the entire transactions and the business of the firm; that in his complaint, he has stated that he is the close friend of the accused family; that one C.Nanjappan is also aware of the entire transaction and the fact of the cheque bearing No.556194 dated 28.8.2002 for Rs.4,90,000/= having been issued on behalf of all the accused; that the examination of the said witnesses during trial will enlighten the Court about the liability of all the accused, but without facing the trial, the petitioners have approached this Court; that even according to the petitioners' affidavit, they are fully aware of the day-to-day affairs of the firm; that while the petitioners are making averments that a blank cheque was issued as security and that their father did not operate the accounts after the year 2000, they cannot deny their involvement or ignorance of the transaction and the business of A.1 firm; that having full knowledge of the issue of the cheque, the petitioners have to defend their case only during trial; that the