The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.T.C.(N.1.).No.1169 ot 2Q25 on the file of learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, including the cognizance order, dated 25.02.2025, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 (for short' 'Nl Act').

2. Heard Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned Senior Gounsel representing Ms. J. Manasvi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,'learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. The crux of the complainant's case is that the petitioner has issued a cheque towards a loan taken from it and the said cheque was dishonoured following which, the complainant filed S.T.C.(N.I.).No.1169 ot 2025 for the offence under Section 138 of \r \ ETD.J (lrl.P.No.5769 of2025 the Nl Act. Now, the present Criminal petition is filed by the 2 accused in the said case seeking quashment of the same.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein disputes his signature on the alleged cheque and that the petitioner has also sent the cheque to the Truth Labs, which has given a report stating that the signature on the cheque does not pertain to the petitioner. He further submitted that the complainant has given a legal notice, but has not mentioned any details and has not submitted any documents supporting the notice. He further submitted that in the legal notice annexure_l was referred, but the same was not furnished to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has addressed a reply notice, but the complainant has failed to comply with the request of furnishing the relevant documents. When the necessary material is not supplied to the petitioner, he is not obligated to respond to the said legal notice. He further submitted that the said principle is laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd.1 and since the complainant failed to furnish necessary material to the petitioner in response to his reply SCC Onlinc SC 6.1 I 3 ETD.J Crl-P.No-5?69 of 2025 notice, the petitioner is not under obligation to comply with the legal notice. He further submitted that since there is no legally enforceable debt, the petitioner is not required to pay any amount .to the complainant, as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner was at South Africa and he has come down to lndia at the request of his maternal uncle i.e., A.M. Emanuel and continued to do business with him, but in the year 2018, he resigned due to some internal disputes and on

06.08.2024, the settlement was arrived at and he was paid an amount of Rs.17 crores towards full and final settlement. Thus, the counsel contends that if at all the petitioner herein is due to pay an amount of Rs.6,30,65,000/-, the complainant could not have settled his account by paying Rs.17 crores. That itself falsifies the contention of the complainant. He further submitted that pursuant to the MoU entered into between the parties, the petitioner has initiated proceedings before the Arbitrator and the complainant pretty well knows that he cannot succeed before the Arbitrator and has lodged the present complaint with false allegations. He further submitted that the cheque is supposed to have been issued towards the loan taken at various intervals. But, the cheque book pertaining to the alleged cheque was issued 4 ETD'J Crl.P.No.5769 of 2025 \ to the petitioner on 05.04'2022' Therefore' the petitioner could not have issued the said cheque as security to the loan that was obtained prior to issuance of the said cheque book' He further submitted that the amount claimed in the complaint was time barred and thus, the complaint itself is not maintainable' He furthersubmittedthatthepetitionerhaslodgedacomplaint against the complainant and as a counter blast to the said complaint, the present case has been filed' He further submitted that there is no strength in the allegations' as the complainant has Settled the account of the petitioner finally by paying Rs.,l7 crores to him in the year 2024' He further submitted that the complainant has stolen the cheque book of the petitioner and misusedthesameagainsthimbyfilingthepresentcomplaint. Thus,thereisnotruthintheallegationslevelledagainstthe petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein' Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions' has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Taruna Batra v' Shikha Batra2 and the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v' Bhajan Lal3' 2 2008 Scc online Del 130 r 1]992 Supp I scc 335

5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5769 of2025 that the contention of the petitioner,s counsel that the petitioner was not served with material papers is absolutely wrong. lf at all the petitioner was not served with any material papers, how can he send the disputed cheque to the Truth Labs and obtain a report. He further submitted that the petitioner has invented the said reason for the purpose of evading the payment due under the cheque. He further submitted that the petitioner ought not to have resorted to the act of sending photostat copies of the cheque to Truth Labs. lt is setfled law that for seeking expert opinion, only an original document is required to be sent, but not the Photostat copy. ln the present case, the petitioner has sent the Photostat copy of the cheque and is putting forth the contention that the signature on the cheque does not pertain to the petitioner. He further submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the complainant and two others was enquired into by the lnvestigating Agency and as per the evidence collected, the case was closed as ,civil in nature,. Thus, the Criminal Petition does not sustain on the ground that the present complaint is lodged as a counter blast to the case filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that if at all the allegation of 6 E'I'D.J (lrl.P.No.5769 of 2025 cheque book being stolen is true, the petitioner could have lodged an appropriate complaint before the relevant authorities' Therefore, the said claim of the petitioner is an afterthought and is invented to avoid the payment to respondent No.2-Company' The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the cheque is not issued for legally enforceable debt is a triable issue and cannot be decided in a quash Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The case of the petitioner is that lvl/s. San Marina lnfotech Private Limited and M/s. Primea Ventures and Homes Private Limited are engaged in the business of sale and development of real estate. The petitioner is the director of the said companies along with his uncle A.M. Emanuel. The relationship between the petitioner and his uncle is strained and thus, the petitioner resigned from the complainant Companies on 02 07.2018 11 is his further case that on 13.12.2024, he lodged a complaint against his uncle and others, as they were threatening him and forged his signature on certain documents and that he has also initiated arbitration proceedings and the same are pending. lt is his further case that on 06.08.2024, Addendum to MoU was entered into between the petitioner and San Marina lnfotech 7 ETD,J Crl-P-No.5769 of2025 Private Limited, whereunder Rs.15.93 crores was paid to the petitioner vlde cheque, dated 06.08.2024, towards non-compete fee and full and final settlement of all dues. An lndemnity Bond and No Due Certificate were also executed stating that the said settlement extends to Primea Ventures and Homes Private Limited as well. While so, he received legal notices, dated

24.01.2025, from the complainant Companies alleging that certain loans were availed by him in the years 2008, 2012, 2018 and 2021 and that the cheques/security cheques, dated 31.12.2024, were issued by him as an assurance to repay the said loan amounts wilh 12o/o interest per annum. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner is unaware of any such loans availed or cheques issued and thus, the petitioner has sent reply notice yra e-mail, dated 30.0'l .2025, seeking necessary enclosures and Photostat copies of the alleged cheques. Since no response was received, the petitioner has again sent detailed reply notice on 07.02.2025, denying the loans and cheques being given by him. lt is further contended that certain cheque books which were believed by the petitioner to be missing were misused. Subsequently, the petitioner received summons in present S.T.C.(N.1.).No.1169 of 2025 filed by the complainant. {

8. The grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing the 8 tIlr),J C rl.l'.No.5769 of 2025 proceedings in the present S.T.C.(N.1.).No.1169 of 2025 are that: (i) There is no legally enforceable debt due to the complainant-company and thus, he is not under obligation to pay the amount alleged and that a false case is foisted against him. (ii) Since the enclosures and the Photostat copy of the cheque as required by him are not furnished to him, it amounts to suppression of material facts and thus, in the light of the judgment in kha Sharad Ushir's case (supra 1), the proceedings the present S.T.C.(N.1.). have to be quashed. (iii) The impugned cheque is alleged to be forged. (iv) The complainant's case appears to be improper and absurd since full and final settlement was made to him by paying Rs.'15.93 crores on 06.08.2024 and that the complainant cannot allege that the petitioner is due to it to pay an amount of Rs.6,30,65,0001.

9. The first contention of the petitioner's counsel is that there is no legally enforceable debt to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant-Company and that the petitioner is not under any 9 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5769 of2025 obligation to pay the said amount and thus, there is no cause of action for the present case. Admittedly, the cheque issued by the petitioner is dishonoured pursuant to which legal notice, dated

24.01 .2025, has been issued. The contention of the counsel for respondent No.2 is that the alleged cheque is very much issued with regard to the legally enforceable debt, while the averment of the petitioner is that his cheques are stolen and are misused by filing the present case. Thus, it is a triable issue and the same cannot be decided at this juncture. The truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial.

10. The second contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the enclosures and Photostat copies of the cheque as required by the petitioner were not furnished to him and it amounts to suppression of facts and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. The petitioner's counsel has placed strong reliance on Rekha Sharad Ushir's case (supra 1), wherein it was held that while filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and recording the statement on oath in support of the complaint, if the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by l0 Et D.J Crl.P.No.5769 of 2025 suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. ln the present case, the legal notice was issued to the petition er on 24.01 .2025' The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner has addressed an e-mail on 30.01.2025, to the complainant requesting to provide the necessary enclosures and a Photostat copy of the cheque mentioned in the notice, as this information is essential to respond appropriately, and that when there was no response to the said reply notice, the petitioner has sent a detailed reply notice on 07.02.2025 denying the loan and the cheque being given by him. He further contends that certain cheque books of the petitioner which were missing have been misused by the complainant. The contention of the counsel for respondent No'2 is that the petitioner is taking false ground very conveniently to avoid the liability and that he is feigning ignorance in spite of having full knowledge about the dishonoured cheque and also havingacopyofalltherelevantdocuments.Hefurthersubmitted that in case the petitioner does not have the relevant documents' he could not have approached the Truth Labs with the Photostat copy of the cheque. He, therefore, contends that in spite of receiving the relevant documents and having knowledge about I i ETD,J Crl.P.No.5769 of 2025 the dishonour of cheque, the petitioner is raising a false ground. This again would be a triable issue, because the contention of the petitioner's counsel about the missing of cheque books and the alleged misuse is inter-twined with the issue of submission of document to Truth Labs and obtaining the expert opinion. Further, the complainant denies the same stating that he has never promised that he will give any enclosures and states that the same are not required under law or under Section 138 of Nl Act. However, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that the petitioner has submitted a copy of the impugned cheque to Truth Labs and obtained the FSL report. Thus, the contention of the complainant that the petitioner has received the necessary documents cannot be brushed aside. Thus, the said issue also can be decided only after a full-fledged trial.

11. The .third contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the impugned cheque is alleged to be forged. The said allegation strikes at the very root of the case, but the allegation of forgery can only be proved only after getting the original document referred to an expert for his opinion. ln the present case, the petitioner has contended that he has already obtained the report from the Truth Labs by submitting the Photostat copy of .ra t2 I11 D,j (lrl.l'.No.5769 of 2025 the alleged cheque, wherein it was held that the signature on the cheque does not belong to the petitioner. lt is settled laqv that to seek an expert opinion an original document has to be submitted' ln support of the said contention, the counsel for respondent No'2 has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T. Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesha, wherein it was held that only an original document has to be submitted to seek an expert opinion. Thus, the original document needs trl be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and then based on the expert opinion and further, on confrontation of the said opinion to the witness during the trial, the trial Court can arrive at a decision' Thus, the said ground also cannot be sustained while deciding the quash petition.

12. The last contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the complainant's case appears to be improbable and absurd as full and final settlement was arrived at on 06.08.2024 by paying the petitioner an amount of Rs.15.93 crores. lf the petitioner was due an amount of Rs.6,30,65,000/-, the complainant could not have paid the petitioner an amount of Rs'15.93 crores. This is again a triable issue. lt is borne out by record that both the petitioner and o 2o2l scc ont.in,: AP 3670 l3 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5769 of2025 one of the Directors of the complainant Companies i.e., A.M. Emanuel, are related to each other and they were into a partnership business and in the year 2018, due to some disputes, the petitioner herein has left the Companies of the complainant. While so, in 2024, the petitioner has received an amount of Rs.15.93 crores towards full and final settlement, while the present case is with regard to the non-payment of loan that was taken by the petitioner at various intervals. The petitioner contends that he has not taken any such loan and if at all he has taken, the complainant Company would not have paid him an amount of Rs.'15.93 crores in the year 2024 towards full and final settlement. While the contention of the complainant is that he has settled the account in good faith and that the loan availed by the petitioner is not repaid and thus, the present cheque is issued on

31.12.2024 and therefore, this is a fresh cause of action. The alleged issuance of cheque is subsequent to the said final settlement. Unless these issues are addressed during the course of trial, the truth cannot be unravelled. Therefore, the said question cannot be decided at this juncture.

13. ln Taruna Batra's case (supra 2), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held thus: t4 D'I'D,J Cl.l'.No.5769 of2025 l n "26. A careful consideration of the materials on record persuades this Court to conclude that, even if the complainant's version on the issuance of the cheques were to be accepted then at least one of the parameters identified in the judgment in Bhajan Lal viz., that the allegations made in the complaint "are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" is attracted. This is a ground on which the complaint is liable to be quashed. lssue (b) is answered accordingly." ln the said case, the Delhi High Court observing that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable, held that the complaint is liable to be quashed.

14. ln Bhajan Lal's case (supra 3), it was held that where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do nol pima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But, in the present case, prima facie case is made out a 1r I* Ti I t ,i I { t i t i i I I I ! : against the petitioner. Thus, the said case law is not applicable l5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5769 of 2025 to the case on hand

15. Since the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.(N.1.).No.1169 of 2025 and the cognizance order, dated 25.02.2025, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Nl Act, it has to be seen whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner herein to \ I sustain the proceedings in the said S.T.C.(N.1.). A perusal of the complaint do point out specific allegations against the petitioner that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured. The \ \ truth or othenruise in the allegations and the grounds raised by the petitioner as discussed in the preceding paragraphs can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the present S.T.C.(N.1.).No.1169 of 2025 and the cognizance order, dated 25.02.2025, against the petitioner herein. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial / t6 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5769 of 2025 court provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shalr appear before the triar court whenever his presence is required during the course of trial. lt is made ctear that the trial court shall decide the s.T.c.(N.1.).No.1169 of 2o2s on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made above, by this court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. / //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.JAYASREE ANTREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The X Additionat chief Metropotitan Magistrate, At secunderabad. ? I" Metropolitan Magisrate - cum- X Junior civir Judge, at Secunderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the"State of Telangani at 4. One CC to Ms J MANASVT REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI 5. One CC to Sri P Raghavendra, Advocate [OpUb] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad.(OUT) Sa/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2811112025 ORDER GRLP.No.5769 of 2025 sEHT c 9 C),J 1 fi 0[fj ?[25 't \i.r \ r> i.' .:',! ,)l DISPOS!NG OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q ( \r