The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the specific conditions under which other parties, such as members of a Hindu Undivided Family, can be held responsible for the dishonour of a cheque.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.6096/2004 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the same.

The accused in C.C.No.6096/2004, which is pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is the petitioner herein. The above said calendar case was instituted by the respondent herein on a private complaint for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against one Rajamani, the father of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein. The father of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Contending that the complaint as against the petitioner herein is not maintainable in law, the petitioner herein (A2), has come forward with the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the above said criminal proceedings so far as the petitioner herein (A2) is concerned.

2. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Shivakumar representing M/s.La Law, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and by Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant were heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint against the petitioner herein is not maintainable and hence liable to be quashed since the petitioner was not the drawer of the cheque for the dishonour of which the complaint has been preferred. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent/complainant that though the cheque was issued by Rajamani, the father of the petitioner herein, he issued the said cheque as the kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family of which the petitioner was also a member and that hence the petitioner should be construed to be a drawer of the cheque.

4. As per the contents of the complaint, it is the contention of the complainant that the petitioner and her father made the respondent/complainant believe that they were capable of getting an admission in a medical college at Bangalore for the son of the respondent/complainant; that coming to know that the respondent/complainant had money to pay for medical admission under payment quota, the petitioner and her father (A2 and A1) approached the respondent/complainant and requested for providing a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to settle a family dispute in the petitioners family; that both the petitioner and her father promised to settle the amount within a month; that believing such promise, the respondent/complainant lent them a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-; that the petitioner and her father (A2 and A1) later on failed to repay the said amount; that after the respondent/complainant persuaded them to repay the amount, the father of the petitioner (A1) issued two cheques bearing cheque Nos.204803 and 204804 for the sums of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/-respectively dated 09.02.2004 and 24.02.2004 respectively; that when the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds and the bankers intimation was received on 30.06.2004; that there after a statutory notice was issued on 10.07.2004 demanding payment of the cheque amount, namely Rs.6,00,000/-; that though the notice was received by the first accused, he did not comply with the demand made in the notice and that hence the respondent/complainant was constrained to prefer the complaint before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the father of the petitioner and the petitioner showing them as accused No.1 and 2 respectively.

5. The averments made in the complaint are to the effect that though the father of the petitioner and the petitioner herein jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant, the chques in