The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court' HYderabad RESP.NDENT

2. Sri Thota Thirupathaiah, S/o. Sri Ramaiah, aged about 54 years Occ. business, R/o H.No.3-407/38-8 Hi-tech City Colony, [Vlancherial - 504208 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the Petition under in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the circumstances stated pleased to pass an order quashrng the complaint in High Court may be on the file of the ll Additional Judicial First Class STC.Nl.No.168/2024 Magistrate, at Mancherial, against the petitroner / accused, as illegal, violative of taw-and Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 , in the interest of justice; l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 PraYing that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased To pass an order staying all further proceedings in th6 case in STC NLNo. 1OB|2O24 on the file of ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mancherial, including appearance of the petitioner/accused,; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri SHYAM S AGRAWAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt Madhavi, Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.'v ENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2743 ot 2o.25 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Se: ion 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202.i (for short "BNSS") by the petitioner/ accused, seeking to cluzrsh the proceedings in S.T.C. NI. No.16g of 2024, cnt rhe file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistra t : oi First Class, Mancherial, for the offences under Sec.t on I3g of Negotiable Insutruments Act, lgB 1 (for shr,; t ,,15" p1 Act").

2. Heard Sri Shyam S.Agarwal, learned co, nsel for the petitioner ernd Ms.Madhavi, learned Assis; ant public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1_State. l) :rused the materials on record.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this crimina retition are that in view of the acquaintance with the c < mplainant, accused approached him and advanced halcl l: rn amount of Rs.1O,OO,00O/- with a promise to pay the sanre with interest @ 2Vo per month and executed a pronr ssory note 7 on 09.03.2022. Till February, 2024, accused paid an amount of Rs.8,37,709/-. During repayment, accused advanced Rs.20,OO,00O I ^nd 72.03.2024 promising to repay the amount with interest issued promissory note on 2o/o per month. But the accused did not repay the same. When the complainalt demalded to pay the amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.053042, dated

24.O2.2O24 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. When the complainalt presented the said cheque, it was returned with an endorsement "fund insufficient"- Then, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused on

17.O5.2O24, but the accused did not give any reply to the said notice. Therefore, the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has paid almost entire amount to the complainant; hence, there is no legally enforceable debt and liability on the part of the accused towards the complainant. The complainant issued lega1 notice to the address belongs to the mother of the accused and the 3 notice was returned to the sender. In view of he accused becoming insolvent having lost money by pr ying hear,y amount of interest to the creditors, he appr rached the learned Additional Judge, City Small Ca'-,r ses Court, Hyderabad and filed insolvency petition uide .P.No.23 of

2024. Therefore, none of the ingredients lev,: led against the petitioner would attract and the prima-faci: case does not constitute against the petitioner to undr,r go him for tria,l and continuation of proceedings against t : : petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Herr :e, seeks to allow this criminal petition

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 rv: rld submit that there are serious allegations against the pi: itioner and the fulfledged trial alone shall elicit the truth r L this case, therefore, interfbrence of this Court at thi; stage 1S unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss t I : criminal petition.

6. Taking the same stand, learned Assislant Pubiic Prosecutor submitted that unless the trial is conducted, the factum of the compliant or uice uersa carnot be .- established and therefore, seeks to dismiss this criminal peti tion

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 ald learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court without making any observation on merits or demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to disposed of this criminal petition granting Iiberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application in accordalce with law, before the trial Court seeking discharge, and upon filing the same, the trial court shal consider the said application on merits and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferablv within a period of three (03) months thereon. 8 Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The ll Addl. Judicial First Class Magrstrate, Mancherial 2 One CC to SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUr\4AR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies VSM/PSL Y*- HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 /1' /1" ','' ,t ;, l!r i, f.,ffi \aa., '\- ORDER CRLP.No.2743 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION I co@ V- <^{nf