Criminal Petition No. 5325 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

- This petition has been taken out under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.666 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool to quash the proceedings therein. Respondent No.1 is the complainant in C.C.No.666 of 2005. It filed complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, alleging inter alia that the petitioner-accused issued five cheques, each for Rs.2681/-, towards discharge of legally enforceable liability and on presentation, the said cheques came to be dishonoured on 3-6-2005. Thereupon a notice dated 16-6-2005 came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to make the amount good covered under the cheques in question. There being no payment, the petitioner-accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.666 of 2005. The petitioner – accused entered appearance and pleaded not guilty as to the acusations leveled against him.

Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The petitioner- accused moved the instant application to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.666 of 2005 on the ground that statutory notice has not been served and that the cheques have been issued for collateral security. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner – accused and learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused has not received the statutory notice and therefore the proceedings initiated basing on the said statutory notice cannot be maintained. It is also contended by him that the petitioner – accused issued the cheques in question for collateral purpose and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner – accused basing on the dishonour of the said cheques cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – complainant opposed the application on the ground that the evidence has been commenced and both the parties adduced their evidence and therefore at this distant of time, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained.