The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

2. G. Ganesh Goud, S/o. Narayana Goud, Aged 55 years, Occ. Politician, R/o. H. No. 5-994, Thadiparthy Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused STC No. 12 of 2023 on the file of the Learned PRL. Judicial Magistrate of Frrst Class at Wanapa rthy l.A. NO: 1 AF 2025 Petition under. Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings agaanst the Petitioner/Accused STC No. 12 of 2023 on the file of the Learned PRL. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy This Petition :oming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimina Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T BALA MOHAN REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and of Sri Amaragani Malsoor Advocate for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4981 OF 202s ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in STC No.'12 of 2023 on the file of the learned Prl.Judicial [/agistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy. ?. Heard the submissions of Sri T.Bala [t4ohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amaragani Malsoor, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the complaint is premature. The de facfo complainant has not waited till the statutory period of '15 days after the service of notice on the petitioner and has filed the complaint just after '1 1 days and thus, there is deviation in the procedure which causes grave injustice to the petitioner and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings

4. The learned respondent No.2 counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the complaint being premature cannot be an excuse to quash the proceedings. He further argued that the petitioner has borrowed money and has issued cheques but when t\y presented the same, the cheques got dishonoured and the 2 petitioner is evading the payments under the cheques on one pretext or thr: other. He therefore, prayed to dismiss; the petition

5. Perursr:d the record. 6 The allegations in the complaint point out that the petitioner is the accused against whom the complaint IS lodged by respondent I'1o.2 herein alleging that the petitioner has approached the respondernt No.2 requesting for a hand loan of Rs.20 Lakhs and promised to repay the same within a period of one month and that the petiti,:,ner failed to repay the said amount within one month and requesterj for a grace period and issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and another cheque for Rs.15,00,000/-, dated 30.11.11022 and requested to present the said cheques on the said datr:. Accordingly, when the respondent No 2 has presented the, said cheques before the Union Bank of lndia, they were returned with an endorsement 'account closed On the basis of the said allegations, the STC No.12 of 2023 was registered on the file of th,: learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy tor the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable lnslruments Act, 1881 (for short'Nl Act') I I I I 3 7 STC No.12 of 2023 is pending before the learned Prl.Judicial lt/agistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy. The recrtals of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. reveal that the cheques are dated 30.11.2022 and were requested to be presented on the said date Accordingly, the complainant has presented them on 01 .02.2023 before the Union Bank of lndia but they were returned as 'account closed'. He issued notice under Section 138 of Nl Act on 06.02.2023 with a demand to repay the legally enforceable debt within 15 days and the complaint is filed on 17.02 2022 The case of the petitioner herein i.e. accused is that the cheques were not issued towards legally enforceable debt and that he has never taken any loan from respondent No.2 and that the complaint is filed before the expiry of statutory period of 15 days from the date of notice and thus, it is not maintainable. S. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Cou( in Afrojkhan v. Mandodaral, wherein the High Court has relied upon the principle laid down in Yogendra Pr&ap Singh v. Savitri Pandey and anothel and has quashed the complaint against the accused. I2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5422 ' (2014) 1O Supreme Couft Cases 713 4 0S. ln Yc,gendra Pratap Singh's case (supra 2), it was held that "Secfior; 138 proviso (c) of the Nl Act, 1BB1 makes it clear that no complitir" can be filed for an offence under Section 138 of Nl Acl unless t; e period of 15 days has elapsed. Any complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been servect on the drawer/accused is no complaint at all in the eye of latt/' '10. ln the present case also the complaint is lodged before the expiry of 15 (jays from the date of notice i.e. the notice was served on 06.O2.20.t3, while the complaint is lodged on 17.02.2023, therefore, in the light of the cited decision, the present complaint is not maintainarrle in the eye of law, hence, the same is liable to be quashed 1 I . ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in STC No.12 of 2023 on the file of ihe learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy, are hereby quashed. I / \ [Vliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYI SD/. MOHD. EPUTY IL STRAR ECTION OFFICER .1 . The ll Additionai Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy 2. The Station House Officer,Police Station Gopalpet,Wanaparthy District 3. One CC to SRl. I BALA MOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies AGlgh HIGH COUR-I' DATED:3010i'12025 1 ,l :- ', ':' 1o uti 2i1?5 . -:'tt-:t .t/ \<r'.ii'.1iI -. \-:--:-, ,... ^.:-',y' ORDER CRLP.No.4981 of 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED ia\ ty+Ir \ r,6