The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telanga.na, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad-. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order Dated. 3-4-2025.in CRL.M.p.NO. ZOI of 2023 in CC N!.No. 3 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Firs_t'Class, Parigi, Vikarabad District and to quash the complaint proceedings in CC Nl No. 3 of 2022on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parigi, Vikarabad District by allowing t-f," said petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 oI B.N.S.S. 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 including appearance of the petitioner/accused in CC NLNo. 3 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parigi, Vikarabad District and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENKATESH GUPTA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri IHONIAS JOSEPH LLOYD, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and of MS. SHALINI SAXENA, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA No ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

03.04.2025 passed in criminal Miscellaneous petition No.201 of 2a23 in cc Nl No.3 of 2022 on the file of Junior civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First class, Parigi, Vikarabad District.

2. Heard Mr.K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thomas Joseph Lloyd, rearned counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant and Ms.shalini saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has not sent the statutory notice to the petitioner on the proper address and that knowingly the notice was sent to a wrong address and thus, the complaint lodged by the comptainant under Negotiable lnstruments Act (for short 'Nt Act') itself is not maintainable. He further has submitted that the complainant has mentioned the correct address of the petitioner in the complaint, but \ \ has sent the notice to a wrong address, which shows his malafide intention and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.6339 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner has been changing his address very frequently and that they have sent the notice on the correct address and that the petitioner is liable to pay the legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the present petition is filed just to protract the proceedings and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K .Gopala Krishnaiahi and prayed to dismiss the Petition'

5. Perused the record'

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statutory notice is sent to a wrong address of the petitioner and that the petitioner has not received the same and hence, could not comply with the said notice and since the petitioner was not served with the statutory notice, the complaint under Section 138 of the Nl Act is not maintainable. Crl.ttI.P. No.201 of ZO23 was filed by the petitioner herein before the trial court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. seeking dismissal of the complaint on the said ground I '1zott1 12 scc 685 1\ \ ,/ .' '"1 _' j Crl.P. No.6339 of 2025

7. A perusal of the copy of the postal cover filed along with the petition reveals that initially the cover was addressed to House No.8-1-77l3lF as mentioned in the present petition and also in the complaint and it was returned with an endorsement saying that 'addressee moved' and hence, returned to the sender, which is borne on the face of the returned postal cover. Thus, subsequently, it was again sent to another address i.e.1-7712211, but the said cover was also returned with an endorsement 'insufficient address' and hence, returned to the sender. However, it is to be noted that change in the address and whether the statutory notice is sent correctly to the petitioner herein or not, is a triable issue and hence, the complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold. Though the petitioner contends that the complainant has managed the postal authorities, he can as well contest the matter on the said grounds and elicit the truth during the course of trial. Hence, the trial court was right in dismissing the apptication i.e. Crl.M.P .No.201 of 2023 in CC Nl No.3 of 2022. B. ln Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K .Gopala Krishnaiah (cited supra) relied on by the tearned counsel for the respondent No.1, the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent therein for repayment of the legally enforceable debt I \ 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.6339 of 202i was bounced and the Magistrate has issued process, then the accused has filed revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge contending that the demand notice was not served on him. The said revision application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the 'said order, the accused has filed writ petition before the High court under section 482 cr.p.c. and the High court quashed the complaint on a short ground that on reading verification of the complaint, it was explicit that there were no recitals to demonstrate that the notice under section 138 of the Nl Act was served upon the accused on any specific date. when the matter reached the Supreme Court, it was held that. "The High court clearry erred in quashing the compraint on the ground that there were no recitals in the complaint that the notice under section r38 of the Nl Act was served upon the accused. The High court arso erred that there was no proof either the notice was served or it was returned/ unserved. That was a matter of evidence."

9. The cited decision squarely applies to the case on

10. Hence, in the light of the above cited decision and in view of the above held discussion, this court is of the opinion that the trial court has passed the impugned order on sound reasoning I 5 ETD,J Crl-P. No.6339 of 2025 and hence, there is no infirmity in the said order and the same is upheld

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD'- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, Parigi' Vikarabad

2.oneCCtoSRI.KVENKATESHGUPTAAdvocate[oPUC]

3.oneCCtoSriTHoMASJoSEPHLLoYD,AdvocateIoPUCI 4. Two ccs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court for the state of Telangana [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies ABK Pnt(- HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 I I ORDER CRLP.No.6339 of 2025 J (- 1 H I A rS. \ () 1il0Iffi I DTSMISSING THE CRLP \lnlz'{