Section 138 NI Act proceedings cannot be quashed at a pre-trial stage when statutory requirements are met, as the question of legally enforceable debt must be examined only at trial under the Section 139 presumption.

ORDER :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

These petitions have been filed by the accused in STC.Nos. 625 to 628 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai seeking to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act which have been initiated by the respondent herein.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of these petitions are as follows:

2.The accused (Mrs.Gunasundari)/petitioner is the legally wedded wife of one Senthil Kumar. The defacto complainant claims that she had married the said Senthil Kumar as the second wife without having knowledge about the subsisting first marriage.

3.It is alleged that Senthil Kumar had borrowed a huge sum of Rs.5 crores from the defacto complainant (Karthika V.Laxmi). The said Senthil Kumar is said to have collected huge amount from the complainant and promised to sell an extent of property. The said Senthil Kumar is also alleged to have abused the complainant and took away gold jewellery.

4.The complainant herein had lodged an F.I.R in Crime No.780 of 2024 before the Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District as against the said Senthil Kumar and two other persons for the alleged offences under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 329(4), 303(2), 351(2) of BNS 2023 read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002.

5.The said Senthil Kumar and two others had filed Crl.OP(MD).No. 22229 of 2024 before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The said application was disposed of by this Court on 03.01.2025 granting anticipatory bail to two other accused persons and referring Senthil Kumar and the complainant for mediation.

6.It is alleged that the mediation was not successful. However, at the end of the mediation proceedings, the legally wedded wife of the said Senthil Kumar (accused) is said to have handed over four cheques totally to a value of Rs.5 crores to the complainant on 14.03.2025 at about 6.00 p.m in the campus of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court towards settlement of claim for money taken away by her husband.

7.The cheques were presented by the complainant for collection on various dates and they have been returned on the ground of 'insufficient funds'. The four separate statutory notices have been issued in time and a reply notice was also sent by the accused on 01.07.2025 claiming that she had never handed over four cheques to the complainant but her husband (Senthil Kumar) had stealthily removed the cheques from their position and handed over to the complainant.

8.It was further contended in the reply that there was no legally enforceable debt between the accused and the complainant. In the reply notice, the accused had called upon the complainant to return the bounced cheque along with four blank promissory notes. In view of the reply notice, the complainant had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.Nos.325 to 328 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai.

(B).Contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side are as follows:

9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never borrowed any amount from the complainant. The cheques that were in her custody have been taken away by her husband and handed over to the complainant in a stealthy manner. The mediation proceedings were only between her husband Senthil Kumar and the complainant and she had never handed over the cheques.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that when the debts did not crystallize or quantify, the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act wou