The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganf nyObratiaO.

2. Kokkula Ramesh, S/o Mysaiah aged 45 years Occ Aoriculture R/o H no 2_ 95/5, Kothulanaduma Mllage Elkathurthy Mandal Karimnagar Dist Currenfly Hanumakonda Dist ..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT 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 call for the records relating to cc No. 7196 oi 2022 on the file of lv addl. junior cum lV addl. judicial magistrate of first ctass (iuvenile court), Hanumakonda and quash the same. 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 including the appearance of petitioner in cc No. 7196 of 2022 on the file of lv addl. junior cum lv addl. judicial magistrate of first class (juvenile court), Hanumakonda, pending disposal of the present quash petition and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri CHEKURI JYOTSNA DEVI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the fottowing: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWAD! SRIDEV! ORD .11 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.7196 ot 2022 (old C.C.No..l41 ot 2O1t) pending on the file of the learned lV Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-lV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court) at Hanumakonda (for short 'trial Court'), registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the trial Court.

3. Heard Mrs. C.Jyotsna Devi, learned counsel for the accused. lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-complainant. Perused the record.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the accused and complainant are relatives. ln view of their relationship, on the request of accused, the complainant advanced a hand loan of I: Rs.50,000/- to meet his legal necessities on 15.11.2016. On the same day, the accused issued a post-dated cheque bearing 2 .l No.000024 for Rs.50,000/- and requested the complainant to present the same after 20 days. When the said cheque was presented for clearance by the complainant on 26.12.2016, the same was returned with an endorsement ,payment stopped by drawer'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the accused on 09.01.2017 and the same was received by the accused on 13.01 .2017. The accused replied on

23.01.2017 with all false contents but he did not repay the amount within the stipulated time. Therefore, complaint under Section 13g of the Act was filed by the complainant against the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is the father-in-law of the complainant,s daughter, and there are family disputes between them. ln the course of resolving matrimonial issues between the son of the accused and his wife, a panchayat was convened in the presence of elders on

04.12.2016. During the said panchayat, on the direction of elders, the accused handed over a cheque of Rs.50,000/-, leaving the name column blank, as a security deposit, to the complainant. The complainant misused the said cheque with a malafide and vexatious intent to file the present complaint against the accused. Despite the accused having sufficient balance and his request to 3 the Bank not to entertain the cheque, it was presented and misused. Aggrieved by such misuse, the accused lodged a complaint against the complainant for the offences under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 and 211 of lPC, which is pending as C.C.No.243 ot 2017 before the learned Vl Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. There is no legally enforceable debt or liability or any commercial transaction between the parties. The complainant and his daughter have filed multiple cases against the accused and his family members solely to pressurize them to settle the matrimonial disputes and to defame them. Hence, she prayed to quash the proceedings against the l I accused.

6. As seen from the record, it is evident that there are triable issues and the truth or othenrise of the allegations levelled against the accused can only be decided after conducting full- fledged trial by the trial Court. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused shall be raised before the trial Court, during the course of arguments.

7. ln view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused at this stage and the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 4

8. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. However, since the case is of the year 2017, the trial Court shall dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. The parties and their counsel shall co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the matter. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. JAY REGI ,ITRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER First Class (Juvenile To I

2. 3. 4. 5. GE/PR (k HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER GRLP.No.11959 of 2024 '\i1 ::- l:i '.-r-.i;' -'-\'. ' (-t.'.\ {- , t \v 2 3 0rc tu! .-., r:..-i.. '..*.-_- * DISMISSING THE CRLP WTHOUT COSTS ,^\ ('l- (? r{u\5-