(6) Having considered the rival contentions advanced by either side, it is necessary to refer to a couple of decisions rendered by a few High Courts in this regard where on similar set of facts the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was challenged. One of the decisions in this regard was a judgement passed by the High Court of Kerala on 2.4.2004 in the case of Sudha Beevi v. State of Kerala [IV (2004) BC 71, 2004 CriLJ 3418], wherein under similar factual background, the High Court of Kerala had held that if the hire-purchase agreement involved in the case between the financial institution and the hirer stood determined by the act of parties, the cheques which were accepted by the financial institution towards advance for repayment of the hire would become instruments without consideration and that they will be instruments for which consideration had failed and under the said circumstances the remedy available to the financial institution is only to realize the balance hire due by filing appropriate suit for damages on account of breach of terms of agreement. It was also held that since the financial institution had admittedly got repossession of the vehicle and that the said repossession was even before the filing of the complaint case, the hire-purchase agreement between the parties stood “determined ipso facto”. Thus, as a consequence of the seizure of vehicle the financial institution had exercised one of the options available to him under the agreement and as such the cheques in its
