High Court · 2025

1 Crystal Paper lndustries, Rep. By its managing Partner' Sri Chandrashekar Gour, S/o iRam Gopal Gour, Aged 50 years, Occ Business, Fl/o Office at Plot No. F-12, Sy. No. 356 and 357, IDA Kukatpally, Hyderabad, 500037. 2 The Hon'ble Xlll Addl. t\iletropolitan N/agistrate, At Kukatpally, IVedchal- t\/alkajgiri District (Formal Neccesary Party) ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated ln the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order one in the nature of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Hon,ble xlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, At Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District from proceedings the in STC Nl No. 1382/2022 as without jurisdiction and judicial precedents. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay in STC Nl No. 138212022 on the file of Hon'ble Xlll Addl. all further proc€.edings ltrletropolitan lvlagistrate, At Kukatpally, tt4edchal Malkaigiri District rncluding appearance of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAVISH KEDIA Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court madr: the followino ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO.16186 OF 2025 ORDER:6er a" n'ble Sri.,rusttce l.lar.slng Rao Nondlkonda) This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the learned XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, from proceeding with the case in STC N.I No.1382 of 2022, without having any jurisdiction and judicial precedents, as arbitrary and illegal.

2. The brief facts of case are that respondent No. l-Crystal Paper Industries herein hled a complaint against the petitioner/ accused under Section 2OO of Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act, 188 1') on 18. 10.202 1 for dishonor of cheque bearing Nos. 115486, dated 09.08.2021 for an arnount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and cheque bearing No. 115483 dated 16.08.2021 for an amount of Rs' ll ,66,608 I - issued by the petitioner herein, before the learned Honlcle XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, I ,* r ' t ) Medchal Malkaj giri District and the sa.rne w€rs registered, vide STC N.I No.1382 of 2022.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that during pendency the said case, the petitioner had transferred. the due amount into the responderLt No.1 bank account through Nationa. Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- anc. also handed over the Deme.nd Draft bearing No.O04321, dated 30.O7.2022 for a sum of F s. 15,66,608/-. The petitioner has placed before this Court the letter issued by the Manager of bank shou'ing that the said Demald Draft as honoured in favour of respondent No.2- company. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.1- company issued letter stating that they have received the entire due amot.nt from petitioner and the said letter has already been frled by tre petitioner herein before the learnr:d XIII Additional Metropolilan Magistrate along with Memo of Co:npounding, dated O2.Oa.2O22 vide S.R.No.32O6/2022, dated 22.11 .2022. In support of his corLtentions, iearned counsel for the petjtioner has drawn the attention of this Bench to the provision of fiection 138 of the Act, 1881, vrhich reads as follows: Ili "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc', of funds in the account.- 3 wp 15136-1025 Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in u,hole or in part, of any debt or other liability' is- returnea by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is rnsufncienL to honour the cheque or that lt excceds the arnount a-rraigcd to be paid from that account by an agreement madc with that baik, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provrsions of this Act, be punished wilh rmprisonment for {a term which may be extended to rwo years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or lvith both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- the cheque has been presented to the bank (a) within a penod of six months from thc datc on which it is drar..n or ivithin the period of its validity, whichcver ls carllcr; the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a dcmand for thc Paymcnt oI the said amount of money by giving a notice rn wrltlng' to Lhe drawer o[ the cheque, lwrthin thirty days of rhe receipt of information by him from the bank rcgarding thc reLurn of lh(l cheque as unpaid; and the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of Lhc sa.rd anolrnt of mone)' to the payec or, as the case may be, to the holder rn due course of the cheque, within hfteen days of the receipt of the said notlce." (c) lU

4. The Section provides that whenever a cheque is dishonoured, a notice under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 has to be issued to the party, and if the entire cheque arnount is paid as per the notice, no doubt no complaint can be todged ln the present case, petitioner claimed that he has paid the entire amount to the Manager of respondent No' l-comparly' Once the complainant receives the entire amount, it is for the complainant to appear before the Court concerned and seek withdrawal of the 4 ')., case. The petitioner also hled letter before the lc:arnecl Magistrate signed by Manager of respondent No.1, which reads thus: 'l G.Srinivas (Manager) of M/s. Crystal Paper lnd-rsLries, represcntalive of Managing Paiter Sri Chandrashekar GttLr. S/cr RarIr Gopal Gour do hereby accept thc Demand I)rafr No."C04321" of t's.15,66,608/- (Rupees lifteen lakhs sixty six lhousalds six hundred ;rnd crght only) against the cheque No.1I5t86 ()1 Rs.t ,00.000/ (five lakhs only) and cheque No. I I i;4(, ol Rs.J1,66.608/- dated 09.08.2021 and dated 16.0t3.202t Also Rs.I ,O0.OOO/ (Rupecs One I-akh Onlyl rvas alrr.zrdr, J,arl on 20.(8.202). Her|b]., I state that rhe cheque amount alone is paid and t 1e STC NI I 6(l ot 202 I '.r,,as Iiled only for the said principal , rrn,runr hen,re, reccived Rs. I5,66,608/ outsrandrng due. I;ff CRYSTAL ']API.lR INDUS'IRIF]S S(li orl be 1a1f of Partner or CRYSTAI- PAPER lNl)(rS'l irIr -r sd/ on behalf of Parrner"

5. The majn grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Magistrate without considering the submissiorrs made by the counsel appearing fcr thr: petitioner herein that the matter was settled out ol Court between the parties. Bu.t, the trial Court is insisting the petitroner's counsel to frle absent petition for absence of the petitioner. rvhich was filed and allowr:d. However, on 17.03,2025, the trial Court issued bailable w€rrant against the petitioner in spite of filing of Memo of Compounding, dated 02.08.2022 and insisting the petitioner to 5 appear before the Court regularly, which is challenged before this Court on the following grounds: 'i) It is submitted that once the compounding memo is hled and the entire due amount being paid vla online transfer and Demand draft which was encashed by the respondents, insisting the petitioner to appear before the court i3 an abuse of process. ii) It is submitted that court ought to have compounded the case without calling for tie petitioner repeatediy. lt is submitted that once the court has taken up the cause for compounding the ollence of 138 NI act and the unofficial respondeot having received the total consideraton o[ the instrument, continuation of such procecdings would be an abuse o[ process, it is submiltcd that the very oblective of NI act is not to subject a person to lncarceration but to mitiSate the circumstances by compounding the case, whcn the respondent has given an underLaking that hc receivcd the anount the court ougtrt to have droPped the proceedings instead of conducting the case and hence lhe relief. iii) It is submitted that once the complainant has accepted the entire consideration as a means of compromise thc curt has got not jurisdiction to proceed further in the said matter since the complainalt never commenced the trial nor there was 251 an examination."

6. In view of the submission made by iearned counsel for the petitioner arld after perusing the material available on record and considering the nature of the grounds raised, this Bench is of the opinion that the purpose would be served, if the bailable ( ( warrant issued against the petitioner is recalled. Hence, the bailable warrant is recalled and thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No.1 shall appear either physically or virtr-rally before 6 (.' r Comprom se duly signed by both parties anc_ their respective counsel. On f,rling of such Memo ald on proper identification of the partier;, the learned Magistrate shall record their compromise as per Mr:mo of Compounding, in accordance u,ith law. If the petitioner or respondent No.1 does not appear atrd not inclined to be present on the date fixed by the trial Co.:rt for recording compromir;e, the learned Magistrate shall proceeC with the matter as per thr: provisions of the Cr.p.C./BNSS and dispose of the matter, in accordalce with law.

7. With the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. There rrhall be no order as to costs. Miscr:llaneous petitions, if any, pending in this rvrit petition shal1 stanc closed. //TRUE COPY/I ASS'.iR/,'l#mf#[IH I se crrph 6rrrcen The Honcurable XlllAddl. Melropolitan l\/agistrate, At Kukatpall|, N/edchal- IValkajgiri District (FormaI Neccesary partyl One CC to SRt RAVISH KED|A, Advocatd [OeUCl Two CD Copies, a \ \ To 1 2 J SA TKS ' M5EP I cvi. \ . .' HIGH COURT DATED:1i310612025 I -'':' ,r/i1c't'' ,-) o a-t ol,0 ) '1 I ORDER WP.No.16186 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.