A.Swetha v. 1. Ankamgari S

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. G. Uma Rani Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri M. Damodar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri M' Vivekananda Reddy, Asst' P'P' The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT - i:: j?, i THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. ST.JANA CRIMINAL /IPPEAL No.231 of 2O2C JUDGMENT: Challenp;ing the judgment and sentence dar :d 29.OI.2O2O passed in C.C.No.241 of 2O18 by the learn:d X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, the present Criminal Appc rl is fited.

2. The bricf facts of the case are that the co rplainant, M. Swetha, married A. Hari Krishna (son of thr accused, A. Satyanarayana) on 24.02.2016. They had a c:rughter. On

25.09.2017, the complainant went to her parents house for the Dasara festivirl- On 01.10.2017, she was info rned that her husband had committed suicide by hanging. Sht suspected the accused and his family members for the death and lodged a complaint u,i:h Meerpet Police. Subsequentl. , as per the version of the complainant, village elders interve red and it was agreed that the accused would repay Rs.3O la rhs, being the dowry and nrarriage expenses. The accused :rllegedly paid Rs. 10 lakhs .n cash and issued two cheques ,rf Rs. 1O lakhs each, dated 16.01.2018. These were dishonr rrred, one for overwriting and the other for "payment stoppt d by drawer.,, '::._ .i'- ' ::!i*ji.: 2 SKS,J Crl.A.No.231 of 2O2O .+i Despite issuing a legal notice, the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. On the other hand, the accused denied the liability and contended that the cheques and agreement were obtained forcibly at the police station under pressure when he was being harassed after the death of his son. He claimed that the cheques were not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability but under coercion. He also stated that there u'as no business or hnancial transaction between them and the liability claimed was in the nature of dowry repayment, which is not legally enforceable. He further pointed out that the complainant herself had declared an intent to remarry, and the alleged agreement (Ex.P8) was only to settle matters under social pressure. He also Iiled multiple complaints against the complainant, including a counter-complaint.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court vide order dated

29.O1.2O2O dismissed the case and acquitted the accused holding that that the complainant failed to prove that the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability and that the alleged liability was for dowry repayment or w 3 sKs,J C'1.A.I{o.231 of 2O2O compensation for a proposed second marriage, u/-rich does not constitute lega lly enforceable debt under law. 'l' re trial Court noted that the accused was justified in stopping prryment on the cheques, parr-icularly in view of the circun.slances and background 01 strained relations. The trial Cour. also rejected the argument of the complainant regarding do,rt;le jeopardy since the crirrrinal case under Sections 4O6 and 42O IPC was still pending.

5. fieard Smt. G. Uma Rani, learned counscl appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri M. Da nodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of responder-t No.1 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant h_rl: [Lr: Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant subm tted that the juclgment passed by the trial court was contra ry to law, the weight of evidence, and the overall probabilities < f the case and that the trial Court had failed to properly appr:ciate the fact that both cheques, bearing Nos.72O748 and '20749, dated

16.01.2O18 for Rs. 10 lakhs each, were dishonoured, one on the ground of "Pa.r'ment stopped by the drawer" and t te other on the ground of "C)heque with alteration cannot bc processed in 2:,> 4 SKS,J crl.A.[o.231 of2o2O '3 -: cheque clearing system." She further subrnitted that the accused had admitted that the cheques belonged to him and had not disputed his signatures on Exs.P1 and P3. Moreover, the trial Court failed to consider Ex.X1, the letter written by the accused to the bank, in which he stated that he would issue another cheque to the complainant. This, according to the appellant's counsel, clearly showed the accused's acknowledgment of the transaction and liability.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court had wrongly concluded that the cheques were issued solely for the return of dowry, overlooking the complainant's evidence that the cheques were issued towards both marriage expenses and dowry amount and that the reasoning of the trial Court that the cheque numbers mentioned in Ex.P8 did not carry dates was flawed and unsustainable in law. She further contended that the trial court had completely misapplied the law and misunderstood the facts, leading to an erroneous acquittal of the accused. She asserted that the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instead of unjustihably accepting the accused's justification for stopping the cheque payments 5 sKs,J C l-A.No.23I of 2O2O and that the trial Court had not considered the written submissions f iled on beha,lf of the appellant r rnd failed to properly exercrse the judicial discretion vested in L Therefore, she prayed the Court to set aside the judgment o[,l.re trial Court by allowing this Criminat Appeal.

8. On thc :ther hand, the learned counsel li rr respondent No.1 opposed _he submissions made by the learn :d counsel for the appellant :itating that there was no legally en i>rceable debt in this case irnd that the cheques were not ir rsued for the discharge of any such debt. He contended tha the cheques were issued ,rnly to facilitate the second ma rnage of the appellant. Therefore, there was no illegality in th: judgment of the trial court, and the trial court had rightly passed the judgment- He, thus, prayed the Court to dismis; the criminal appeal.

9. In the light of the submissions made b1, both learned counsel and r-rpon perusal of the material availa tlc on record, the point lor determination in this case is rvhether the complainant tras established that the impugned cheques were issued by the accused for the discharge of a lega ly enforceable detrt and wbether, upon dishonour of those cheques, the 5 SKS,J Crl-^,No.231 of 2O2O accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, thereby attracting the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

10. To prove the case of the appellant/complainant, the complainant examined herself as P.W. 1 and also examined the bank official as P.W.2. She relied upon documentary evidence marked as Exs.Pl to Pl 1. The admitted facts are that the complainant is the wife of the deceased Hari Krishna, and the accused is his father. Hari Krishna died by committing suicidc on 3O.09.2017 while the complainant was residing at her parental home. Upon knowing the death, she lodged a report before the police. Subsequently, in view of intervention by village elders, the accused allegedly agreed to pay Rs.30 lakhs towards marriage expenses and dowry amount, out of which Rs. 10 lakhs was paid in cash and two cheques of Rs.1O lakhs each were issued for the balalce. 1 1 . According to the complainant, the cheques were issued in discharge of the said liability, while Ex.P8, the written agreement, mentions that the amount was promised by the accused to help tJ:e complainant remarry. The complainalt herself frled Ex.P8 to support her case. There is no dispute ,/ / I 7 sKs,J C rl.A.l{o.231 of 2O2O regarding the signatures on the cheques or the .rect that they were dishonor:red. Upon dishonour, the complzril-izrnt issued a legal notice, and the accused replied, stating thzt the cheques and agreemerrt were forcibly obtained under pressure from police and village elders following allegations made by the complainant rr:garding the death of her husband.

12. The recx,rd further shows that the complarn rnt had filed a report under ljection 174 Cr.P.C., which was lalt r sought to be altered to Se( tion 306 IPC through a writ petit.on. However, this Court observed that there were no ingredi|nts to attract Section 306 II,C and merely directed the police t r conclude the investigation. The accused subsequently obtainr cl anticipatory bail, and the complainant's petition for cancellat on of bail was also dismisserl by this Court. The accused lod 1ed a counter- complaint against the complainant, which was registered as Crime No. 14il of 20 18 under Sections 406 rnd 420 IpC. However, based on that complaint, the police s tated that the action would be taken after enquiry, and due tc no immediate action, the accused Iiled a writ petition. He also alleged that he had made arlangements for the complainant al I her husband to live separately and claimed that the complain rnt had driven SKS,J Crl.A.!to.231 of 2o2O the deceased to suicide. Certain message conversations between the complainant and the deceased were also brought on record, suggesting strain in their relationship. Furthermore, the complainant had hled domestic violence proceedings and other cases even on the day of the death of her husband.

13. A reading of Ex.P8 makes it clear that the amount mentioned therein was to be paid for the second marriage of the complainant and not in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. There was no legal obligation on the accused to pay Rs.20 iakhs to the complainant. The alleged purpose of repayment of dowry and marriage expenses is also not legally enforceable, as dowry transactions are prohibited under law. Thus, the complainant failed to prove that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court. rightly held that there was no such enforceable liability. Although the complainant argued that the previous criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC were based on similar facts, the contention that the present complaint under Section 138 NI Act is barred by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C. is without merit. Both proceedings are distinct and independent in law. While 9 sKsr, (.rl-A. o.23 t of 2O2O Sections 406 and 42O IpC pertain to criminal b:each of trust and cheating, the offence under Section 13g NI Act relates to dishonour of ,:heques for legally enforceable deb s Therefore, there is no ilk,gality in the judgment of the trial r lourt and this Court does not- find any merit in the criminal appe .Ll

14. Accordirrgly, this criminal appeal is dismisr ed conhrming the judgment dated 2g.Ol.2O2O passed in C.C.N t.241 of 2O78 by the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous applications, if any pendin11. shatl stand closed. sd/- P.CH NAGABHUSHAMBA / t)EPUTY REGISTRAR / (" //TRUE coPY// sEcrloN oFFtcER To,

1. The X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for th( state of Telangana at Hyderabad [Ol.JT]

3. One CC to Smt. G. Uma Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri M. Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies VTVPSI, w J HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.231 of 2020 , : -{E STA )-4: o ) J IJ 2 CI sEP 2U5 ,r- I .."iqo,trc ' ..: --- -. ,- A r-r!-O DISMISSING THE APPEAL g "n@ &.-