IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.Nos.6972, 7318 & 7322 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.Nos.14380 to 14382 of 2024 Jai Praveen G.K. ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6972/2024 D.Srividya ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7318/2024 D.Chiranjeevulu Raju ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7322/2024 Vs.

R.Sekhar ...Respondent in all Crl.O.P's. Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant leave to the petitioners for filing appeals as against the judgments of the trial Court in C.C.Nos.3727, 3725 and 3726 of 2019 respectively all dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Fast Track Court-I, Metropolitan Magistrate at Allikulam, Chennai.

In all Crl.O.Ps.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gopinath

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in all the Criminal original petitions are similar in nature, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The complainant in CC.No.3725 of 2019 is the daughter of the complainant in CC.No.3726 of 2019 and the complainant in CC.No.3727 of 2019 is the son in law of the complainant in CC.No.3726 of 2019. The case of the petitioners/complainants is that, the accused is a close relative of the complainant in CC.No.3726 of 2019 and he had approached the complainants and borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from each of the complainant and agreed to repay the same within a period of six months with interest of 24% per annum and he had also executed Demand promisory notes all dated 10.04.2016 to that effect. Since the accused failed to repay the above said borrowed amount, upon repeated request of the complainants, he issued three cheques all dated 10.12.2018 for discharging the above said liability. When the said cheques were presented for realization, the same were returned with endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Thereby, the petitioners sent legal notices all dated 18.12.2018 to the accused through their Advocate, for which, though the accused sent replies making vague allegations, which were denied by the petitioners, however, he failed to repay the borrowed amount. Thereby, the petitioners made complaints under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the trial court had mechanically dismissed the same, vide present impugned orders all dated 15.12.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioners have preferred the respective petitions seeking to grant special leave to prefer appeals against the said orders all dated 15.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though the accused in his replies all dated 22.12.2018 had stated that his wife had given Power of Attorney for a property in favour of the wife of the complainant in CC.No.3726 of 2019, who in turn had conveyed the same in favour of the said complainant, towards the settlement of the aforesaid debts, however, the same was stronly denied by the petitioners, as the same is in respect of different transaction wherein the complainant in CC.No.3726 of 2019 had purchased the said property and that too in order to lend a helping hand to the accused and the complainant in CC.No.3726 of 2019 had paid the entire sale consideration for the purchase of the said property. While so, the accused with an ill motive is trying to connect the said transaction with the above said borrowings and the trial court, had mechanically dismissed the complaints made by the petitioners which is not sustainable. He further submitted that, when the accused did not deny the signature in the cheques, the presumption to prove that the cheques were not given to discharge any debt lies with the accused and he has to rebut the presumption, when the petitioners have clearly established that there was a legally enforceable debt. In the present case, without rebutting the presumption, on vague grounds, the petitioners'

complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were dismissed, which is not sustainable. He further submitted that, there are arguable poi