The limitation period for enforcing a debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is based on the date of demand, not the date when the debt was incurred.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947

CRL.MC NO. 8357 OF 2023

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.729 OF 2023 OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR

PETITIONER/S:

REEJA C.V,AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.JAGADEESH, CHANDRAN, 12D-

GOLDEN HEIGHTS, BLOSSOM COCHIN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA PO,

ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682020

BY ADVS.

SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

SMT.AMMU M.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH

COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 AJAYAKUMAR M,AGED 55 YEARS

S/O.RAGHAVA MENON, MULLASSERYIL HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR PO,

THRISSUR., PIN - 680664

BY ADV SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

OTHER PRESENT:

PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.8357 OF 2023 ------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in ST No.729/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungalloor (Trial Court), which has been filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’, in short).

2. The 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure A4 complaint, inter alia, alleging that he is a businessman having business in India and abroad. The husband of the petitioner is a film producer and the petitioner is an actress. Her husband was introduced to the 2^nd respondent in the year 2013 through a common friend. Exploiting the familiarity between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 05.06.2017. When the 2^nd respondent demanded the money back, the petitioner issued a cheque on 13.05.2022 drawn on the Federal Bank for Rs.3,00,000/-.

However, the cheque on presentation to the bank got dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the petitioner’s account. Although the 2^nd respondent issued a lawyer notice and the petitioner issued a reply notice, the petitioner failed to pay the demanded amount. Thus, the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the

2^nd respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that, as there is a candid admission in Annexure A4 complaint, that the money was allegedly borrowed by the petitioner from the 2^nd respondent on 05.06.2017 and that the cheque was only issued on 13.05.2022, the debt has become hopelessly time barred. He places reliance on Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023 (5) KLT 1129 (SC) to buttress his above contention. Furthermore, he contends that, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value, as the debt is time barred, the same is not a legally enforceable debt. Therefore, Annexure A4 complaint may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent stoutly opposes the Crl.M.C. They in unison submit that, it may be true that the petitioner borrowed the money on 05.06.2017, but it is the date of demand which is the crucial question, that is on 13.05.2022, the date the petitioner issued a cheque. As the cheque got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and the petitioner refused to repay the demanded amount, the petitioner has comm