The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad. by its Public RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.22312O19 on the file of the Judicial -First Class Magistrate at Kodad to the extent of the Petitioner is concerned in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.22312019 on the file of the Judlcial First Class Magistrate at Kodad pending disposal of the above Crl.P in the interest of Justice. s This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and None appeared for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER W'.-.'1-. '.-- l' ';,'.//.,/ THE HON'BLE SHRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR WKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9O4 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioner/accused No,2 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.223 of 2079 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodada.

2. Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner/ accused No.2, ald Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor for respondent No.2- State

3. A complaint is filed on behalf of the complainant i.e., respondent No.1 under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'NI Act) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodada, registered as C.C.No.22 3 of 2019. Petitioner is accused No.2. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.l approached the complainant-respondent No. 1 to provide Rs.2O,0O,OO0/- to meet his family needs and others financial needs. It is further alleged that accused No.1 offered to execute Demand 2 J/1K, J Crl.P.No.9a1 2025 Promissory Note ald agreed to pay interest on borrowed amount, but accused No.1 failed to pay the principal amount borrowed and despite making several efforts, has not re-paid the amount.

4. It is alleged that on 01.11.2018, accused No.1, along with accused No.2, came to the residence of respondent No.1 and offered to make part settlement of the amount and accused No.2 voluntarily offered the cheque bearing No.000033, clated 01.11.2018, payable at Andhra Bank, Main Branch at Kodada from account No.O32910O27OOOT52 for a sum of Rs.2O,OO,000/- on beha_lf of accused No.l. It is also alleged that petitioner/accused No.2 requested to present the cheque in first week of Januar5r, 2019. That the complainant presented the cheque for clearance on

10.01.2019 through his bank at State Bank of India at Kodada, GP Complex, Kodada Branch. That the said cheque was returned u,ith an endorsement ,,funds insufficient,, and that a cheque return memo was issued on 14.Ol.2OI9. That a legal notice was issued on 12.02.2019 to both accused Nos. 1 and 2 to repay the said amount. In the complaint, i i t' .a J JAK, J Crl P.No 9Oa 2025 it is further stated that the complaint is frled within time and that there is no other litigation pending in arry of the Courts on the issue and sought action on both accused Nos. I and 2 for the offences under Sections 138 ar,d 142 of NI Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/accused No.2 that it is accused No. 1, who for his family and financial needs, sought help of respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. That accused No.1 executed demand promissory note. in favour of complainant to pay the said amount along with interest. It is further submitted that accused No.1 took the petitioner/ accused No.2 herein to the house of the complainant. That the petitioner/ accused No.2 gave a cheque dated Ol-11.2018 for an amount of Rs.20,0O,OO0/-. It is also submitted that the petitioner/ accused No.2 is not vicariously liable as there is no legally enforceable debt nor any liability to pay. It is submitted that the contents of the compiaint do not make out a case to enforce recovery of the amount from accused No.2. It is Iastly urged that proceedings in C.C.No.223 of 4 JAK, J Crl P No 9M 2425 2Ol9 be quashed against the petitioner and if not quashed, he would be put to irreparable loss and injury.

6. This Court while issuing notice to respondent No.1 on IO.02.2025, permitted learned counsel for petitioner to take out personal notice and hle proof of service. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that notice was sent to respondent No.1 and a Memo uide U.S.R.No.16807 of 2025 is fiIed. That there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 submitted that C.C.No.223 of 2Ol9 is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodada. It is a clear case where proceedings in C.C.No.223 of 2019 be allowed to continue and interference is not necessitated. It is evident from perusa-i of cheque issued (page No.9 of the material papers) that the cheque was presented to the Bank, was returned with al endorsement "funds insufficient". Hence, offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act are attracted. That it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.223 of 2019. ,'/ ( 5 JAK, J CrLP.No.904 2D5

8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

9. Complaint is hled by the complainant-respondent No.1 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodada under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act. It is alleged that accused No.l for his family and hnancial needs intended to borrow Rs.2O,OO,000 /- and offered to execute a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant. It was also agreed that accused No.l would pay the said sum with interest, but accused No.1 committed default in paying interest or to clear the principal amount. It is further alleged that despite efforts of the complainant, accused No.1 did not come forward to clear the principal amount.

10. It appears that petitioner on his own issued cheque annexed at page No.8 of the material papers. On perusal of the cheque, it is observed that the said cheque is issued by petitioner/ accused No.2 to one K. Raghunath, the complainant herein. It is not known as to why the petitioner has issued the cheque in the name of complainant for an amount of Rs.2O,OO,0OO/-. It is written on the backside of 6 JAK, J Crl.P No 904 2025 -; cheque that cheque is being issued for the debt (Baaki) as assurance (Haami gaa). It is written in Telugu and is attested by petitioner/ accused No.2. The same is stated in the complaint. Once the petitioner, on his own, voluntarily has issued the cheque for the debt of accused No.1, he carnot turn back. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to delve into all these aspects as it is for the trial Court to go into all these issues. 1 1 . On perusal of the contents of the comptaint, it is evident that the tralsaction is more of a financial transaction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bharathi Deti and Another a. State of Telangand and Anothert, held that in cases of commercial tralsactions, financial transactions etc., which are person to person and nothing against the society, the Court has to look into the entire facts and then arrive at a conclusion.

12. Having considered the entire factual matrix o1' the case, the offences registered against the petitioner/ accused No.2 a-re not against the society aqd are person to person. This I (2024) lo scc 384 I I 7 JIK, J Crl.P.No.904 2025 Court, having considered the submissions, is of the opinion that the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.223 of 2Ol9 on the hle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodada, can be dispensed with and is accordingly dispensed with on conditions. Petitioner/ accused No.2 shall present himself before the learned Magistrate, when his presence is required and summoned. He shall file ar alhdavit that he will not dispute his identity and that proceedings may go on in his absence, to be conducted by his counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner/ accused No.2 shall represent before the trial Court without fail on all dates. Petitioner/ accused No.2 shall not dispute the proceedings conducted in his absence. This order shall stand vacated automatically, if petitioner fails to attend the proceedings as and when summoned by Court and when the counsel representing petitioner/ accused No.2 fails to attend Court proceedings bn the dates' Any observations made in this order shall not have a bearing or influence on the trial Court during trial or while concluding. 8 .IAK, J Crt.P No 904 2025

13. With the above observations, the Criminal petition 1S disposed of. Miscelianeous applications pending, if any, shall stand ciosed. Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s ON OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad. 2. The Station House Officer, Kodad town Police Station, Suryapet District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRl. P NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) To PR HIGH COURT DATED:1 910212025 ORDER CRLP.No.904 of Z02S 6 IHE Sr4 14: o 2 ! fiAY 2025 + J .) * t)EspATCY\ gO * z C;) .+ DISPOSING OF THE CRL.PETITION