The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Gundu Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Srrnivas Reddy, Age 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No 6-91, Mahalingapuram Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501 203. ...RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 call for the records relating to the Complaint in S.T.C.N.l. No. 41 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella pending disposal of the Criminal Petitron. f.A. NO: 1OF 2O2s 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner in Complaint in S.T.C-N.|. No. 41 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. l.A. NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 528 oF B.N.S,S, praying that irr ,he circumstances stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' l: High Court may tne reservation of orders reccr led on 29 10'2025 be pleased to Recall I set in the absence ot n"sponoeni No.2 and re-open the sai,i hearing rn crl.P. "siOe r.ro.t rSOe ol 2025, pendrng disposal of the criminal petition This Petltion coming on for hearing' upon perusrng tl r Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the ar9 rments of sri G I ri Jithender Rao Satyanarayana Yadav ,Advocate for the Petrtioner '66 Veeramatta, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of ttr': Respondent No 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER /:. THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11503 0f 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in STC Nl No 41 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Chevella, for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 ot the Negotiable lnstruments Act (for short 'Nl Act')

2. Heard trlr. G. Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No' 1-State' lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the resPondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not due to pay any legally enforceable debt to the de facfo complainant herein and the complainant himself does not know as to the actual amount given as alleged debt and has stated varied amounts at different places thus, the complaint itself is false He has further submitted that the petitioner has taken loan of Rs.3,00,0001 only and has repaid the same and that lhe de facto i i 2 EfD,J cd-P-No.11tO3 ol 2025 complainant has obtained three cheques from [r n, but has not returned the same on hiS repayment and has put th lm to misuse by filing this case. He, therefore, prayed to quash he proceedings against the petitioner

5. Perused the record

6. lt is alleged that the petitioner herein har; taken a debt of Rs.30.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant and r lreed to pay the same with interest. Thereafter, the petitioner dic not repay the amount and dragging the matter and on repeated re luests of the de facfo complainant, the petitioner issued two cheqr es for Rs.16.00 lakhs each. When the cheques were presented i- the Bank, they were returned for the reason that 'Payment stoppo I by the drawer' and the same was intimated to the petitioner. Thereafter, on repeated requests made by lhe de facto complainrr 11, the petitioner issued another cheque bearing No.286123 for Rs.

15.00 lakhs and assured to transfer an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to t. > account of the de facto complainant. When the de facto complain a rt presented the said cheque in the Bank, the same was also dishc roured with the endorsement 'Kindly contact Drawer, Drawee b; n k and please present again' and hence, he intimated the same j r the petitioner. Then, the petitioner sought time for one week to rj )posit the same ar'' J ETD,J Crl.P. No 11!@ ol2025 /./ and he transferred Rs.5.00 lakhs to the account of the de facto complainant. As per the request of the petitioner, he has waited for one week and presented the cheque again, but it was returned for the reason 'payment stopped by the drawer.' With the said set of allegations a legal notice was issued and finally case under Section l33ofNlActwasfiled.Theallegationsinthecomplaintprimafacie point out the case under section '1 38 of Nl Act against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he has taken only Rs.3 00 lakhs from the de facto complainant and subsequently, with interest he has paid Rs.5.00 lakhs, but still the de facto complainant has misused the cheques.Thetruthintheallegationsmadebythepetitionerandthe reason for issuing all the three cheques, would be culled out only afterafull-fledgedtrialandthesaidissuesaretriable,andhence' the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. The petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed' IVliscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' SD/ - P PONNA KRIS SISTANT RE R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER riss,,x ilssJ",,[ft :"r"J"!5:L8f iidl 3:",Yil5i the state of r er a n g a n a at To,i +f" Hvderabad.(OUT) ..;.::T1 i

3. One CC t9 Sri G Satyanarayana Yadav, Advocate [OPU ]l 4. Two CD Copies Sa/PSl. t({- I I , ! HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.11503 of 2025 ,1 t s tJ 'f- t,. * I i\rcr' : --.-.---.- \--:._ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o*8@