The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimlnal petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in STC.N.l.No. 6651 OF 2023 registered on the file of the VIll Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, for the offences punishable under Section 138 and '141 of Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 in the interest of equity and justice while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C l.A. NO: 2OF 2O2s Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying 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 including appearance of the Petitioner in STC.N.l.No. 6651 OF 2023 registered on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranlan Complex, for the offences punishable under Section 138 and '141 of Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petitaon. This t)etition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crlminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Radha Rani Devint:ni representing Smt. PULIPATI VANDANA ,Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. and, Sri Syed Khamruddin Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER / / / THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3419 of 2O25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in STC.NI'No.6651 of 2O23 pending on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 141 oi the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a private complaint on 22.02.2023 before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.9,OO,O0O/- and Rs.21,OO,OOO/- as hand loans and had executed two promissory notes for Rs'3O,OO,OOO/-. It was further alleged tl'rat the petitioner had issued two cheques of Rs.15,O0,0O0/- each, which were dishonoured with the endorsement "Exceeds Arrangement". The complainant claimed to have issued a statutory notice and, upon receiving a reply denying liability, f-rled the complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act. 2 sxs,J Crl-P.No.3419 of2O25

3. Heard Smt. Radha Rani Devaneni, learned counsel repret;enting Smt. Pulipati Vandana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri. D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behall' of the respondent - State and Sri Syed Khamruddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the altegations were false and did not disclose any offence under the NI Act and that the complaint was time_barred, vague, inconsistent, and based on a legally unenforceable debt. She further submitted that part payments were not endorsed on the cheques, the statutory notice lacked material partict:lars, and the alleged cash loan violated the Income Tax Act. She contended that the cognizance order lacked reasons and that continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of procesri. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnam Raju Finances, tlyderabad v. Abida Sultana and another 1, Basaliogappa v. Mudibasappa 2 , and Sampelly Indian Renewable Energy Satyanarayana Rao v. ' zooa 1r1 nro 1crl.1 s+o 1le1 ' ArR 2019 ;C 1983 / /,II 3 SKS,J crl.P.No.3419 of2025 Development Agency Limited3, Therefore, she prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. lrarned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and was attempting to misuse Section 482 Cr.P.C. to evade repayment of a clearly admitted and legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the petitioner had taken a hand loan of Rs.30,OO,00O/- in the year 2OL6, acknowledged the liability by issuing two promissory notes and two cheques for Rs. 15,OO,OOO/- each, and thereafter defaulted on both principal and agreed interest. He contended that the cheques were dishonoured with the endorsements "Exceeds Arrangement" and "Funds Insuffrcient", and a statutory notice was duly issued within time. ' He further submitted that the complaint was filed within the limitation period, the pleas of the petitioner were false, vague and intended to mislead the Court, and that the allegations in the complaint constituted a clear prima facie offence under Section 138 NI Act. He emphasized that the '(zore) to scc +sg 4 sl(s,.J Crl.P.No-3419 of 2O2S petitirner had been evading trial, had not appeared before the Magiritrate, and was seeking to derail the proceedings. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hontrle Supreme Court in A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna+, and Biten p. Dalal v. Bratindranatha Banerjee s, Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the primary contention of the petitioner that tile promissory note was executed in the year 2016 and the ccmplaint was filed in the year 2O22, thereby rendering the al leged debt t.ime-barred, cannot be adjudicated at this stage in a petition under Section 4a2 Cr.p.C. Whether a legally enforceable debt existed on the dates of issuance of the chequcs, whether any part-payment amounted to acknorvledgment ofdebt under law, and whether the debt was time-b;lrred or saved by such acknowledgment, are all matters which require evidence to be led before the trial Court. Such disput<:d questions of fact cannot be examined in quash o t lzoou 1 z scc eaz 1zoor1 s scc re 5 SKS,J crl.P.No.3419 of 2025 proceedings. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in Basalingappa (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the said decision arose out of appellate proceedings after full-fledged trial based on appreciation of evidence. 7 . The further contention of the petitioner that the complainant did not possess a money-lending licence is aiso not a ground for quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, as the existence of a licence is not a statutory requirement for the maintainability of a complaint under the said provision. This issue, too, is a triable factual question. At the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is required only to examine whether the complaint, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the offence.

8. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint, issuance of cheques, their dishonour, statutory notice, and filing of complaint witiin time collectively disclose a prima facie oflence under Section 138 NI Act. Consequentty, the grounds raised by the petitioner involve disputed factual 6 SKS,J Crl.P.l{o.3419 of 2O2s aspects which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Sectiorr 482 Cr.P.C. ald no case for quashing is made out. Hence. the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. ,\ccordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Ivliscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 . The v'lll Metropolitan Magistrate' Manoranjan Complex' Hyderabad' 2. The S,HO Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad' 3. One OC to Smt PULIPATI VANDANA Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two Oooies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

5. 6ng {}C to Sri Syed Khamruddin,Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two (lD Copies PK/PSL ,t. - /fo1 'z ( HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 CRLP.llo.3419 of 2025 ltlE S TA , I l- ? 3 JAN 2026 * O*.. :. fa:l CRIMII\IAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. -7 1D ( v \$