No. 10887 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.362 of 2008 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District, seeks for quashment of the case against the petitioner.

The petitioner allegedly issued a cheque in favour of the second respondent for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The cheque stood bounced when presented for encashment. The second respondent consequently filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Sri G.V.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the second respondent filed a false complaint against the petitioner and that taking advantage of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the father of the petitioner and the second respondent, this false case was foisted. He further contended that the second respondent did not even state the date on which the petitioner approached the second respondent and the date on which the petitioner borrowed monies from the second respondent and contended that the second respondent would have given the details, had there been truth in the complaint.

I am afraid that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are questions of fact, which deserve to be considered by the trial Court and not in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all these contentions before the trial Court.