The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the complaint in STC. No. 13 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class IVlagistrate at Choutuppal against the petitioner/ accused. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 in STC. No. 13 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal against the petitioner/ accused. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ANIRUDH N, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI E GANESH, the Assistant public prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri L HARITH, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.\TENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7767 ot'2025 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in STC.No. 13 of 2025, on the lile of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal (for short, 'the trial. Court'). The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2O.1O.2O21 in the morning hours accused approached the complainant to advance a loan of Rs.6,OO,0OO/- to meet his urgent needs. After receipt of the said amount, the accused executed a bond worth of Rs.SO/-in favour of the complainant with his own hand uriting, agreeing to repay the said amount by IO.OI.2022. The accused had again approached the complainant on the sarne day in the noon hours and requested to advance a hand loan of another Rs.6,00'000/-' The complainalt advanced the sajd amount. After receipt of the said amount, the accused executed another bond with \ 2 ,/T' '" his own hand writing. Further, the accused had approached the complainant and informed that he secured job in the United States of America and would be travelling there shortly and has issued two post dated cheques each for Rs.6,O0,OOO/- bearing Nos.330738 and 07.O1.2025. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment, they were dishonoured on the ground 'lnsufficient Funds". In spite of the complainant bringing it to the notice of the accused, the accused left a deaf ear. Therefore, the complainant got issued statutory legal notice on 18.01.2O25 demalding payment of cheque amounts. Upon receipt of the said notice, the accused neither repaid the said amount nor gave any reply to the said notice and thereby, the accused committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.l. Act').

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record. -.-- /

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner rvould submit that the allegations levelled iri the complaint do not make out or constitute offence under Section 138 of N.l. Act. The complainant lodged a complaint aJter a lapse of 3 years r.r,ith al int.ention to harass the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are as follows:

18. Effect of acknouledgment in writing (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescibed peiod for a suit or application in respect of ang propertA or right, an acknouledgment of liability in respect of such propertA or right has been made in u.triting signed bg the partg against u.thom such propeftA or right is claimed, or by ang person through tuhom he deriues his title or liabilitg, a fresh peiod of Iimitation shall be computed from the tine when the acknotuledgment was so signed. (2) Wlere the uiting containing the acknouledgment is undated, orol euidence mag be giuen of the time uhen it utas signed; but subject to tle prouisions of the Indian Euidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral euidence of its contents shall not be recei.ued. the purposes o/ rhis section, Explanation: -For (a) an acknouledgment mag be sufftcient thottgh it omits to spectfg the exact noture of the propertg or right, or auers that the time for pagment, deliuery, perfortnance or ettjoyment has not get come or is accompanied bg a refusal to paA, deliuer, perform or permit to enjog, or is coupled uith a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the propertg or igh| 4 ! B) the utord .signed" means signed either personallg or by dn agent dulg authoised in this behalf, and (c) an application for the exeantion of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of ang property or right.

5. To support his case, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaram vs. M.Azhagiri Pilldil. The relevant portion reads as under: 2O. The contention ignores the purport and scope of Section 18 and proceeds on the assumption that an acknouledgement can be made only bg a 'debtor' and there i"s no question of a 'creditor' making an acknowledgement. Section 18 of the Act deals not onlg uith acknouledgement of debts, but acknouLledgements with reference to all suits inuoluing properties or rights for u-thich limitation is prescibed under tLLe Act. It sets out tLLe ciranmstances in uhich a fresh peiod of limitation can be computed for a suit. If the suit is one for recouery of the amount due under an on-demand promissory note, no doubt, onlg an acknowledgement bg the debtor can extend the period of limitation. But in regard to mortgages, T.P. Act has created and recognized ights as uell as obligations both in tLLe mortgagor and the mortgagee (uide Chapter N of the Transfer of Propertg Act, in partianlar, Sections 60 and 67). Section 18 of the neu Act prouides that uthere before tLe expiry of the prescribed peiod for a suit in respect of ang propertA or right, an acknowledgement of liabilitg in respect of such propertA or right has been made bg the partg against uhom such propertA or ight is claimed, o ' lzooo; I scc <aa 5 fresh peiod of limitation shall be computerT from the time uthen the acknowledgement was so signed. An acknou;ledgement under Section 18. can, therefore, be bg a mort.qagee also, ond such acknouledgement u.till extend the limitotion for a suit against the mortgagee in respect of the propertlJ or right claimed against him.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that truth could be elicited only upor-r conducting thorough trial by examining the witnesses and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence seeks to dismiss the' present criminal petition. 7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the learned trial Court to decide the case on its own merits. However, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is at libert5r to file an application for discharge before the learned trial Court, in accordance with law, raising the same contentir)ns as were raised herein. The appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, subject to fiIing an affidavit stating that he will not dispute the proceedings conducted by his counsel in his absence' However, the petitioner shall appea-r before the learned Magistrate whenever his presence 6 is specifically required. In the event of the petitioner fail to appear as and when directed by the Court, this order dispensing with his appearance sha-ll stand vacated automatically. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/+JAYASRE TANT REGI CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class l\/agistrate at Choutuppal 2. One CC to SRI ANIRUDH N Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI L HARITH Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies CR/psl Y+- HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.7767 of 2025 1t]: t ( a )i .) t 04 t,|[\, 2Sfi t';,- .S.',. - r .-1 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 5co da[ YY_.<^4 GI'0*-