Criminal Petition No. 15223 of 2014 · The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 in C.C.No. 487 of 2012 on the file of XIX Spl. tMagistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad pending the Criminal Petition. GRIMINAL PE'rlflON NO: 15186 OF 2014 Between: M/S PAITAS BUILDERS, BANGALORE, Rep. by its Prop. G Madhan [\rtohan Reddy S/o. G, Gopi Reddy, age 50 years, Occ Business, R/o. 129, First Floor, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore - 560 027 AND PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 lV/S VEE:RA BUILDERS, Rep. by its Partner C.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Jali Rgddy, arged 45 years, Occ Business, Plot No.148, Eenadu Colony, Vivekanernda Nagar Colony Extn., Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72. 2 The Stat: of Telangana,, Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvk:morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quar;h by setting aside the Order of the XIX Spl. Magistrate Erramanzil dated 1711212013 in Crl.M.P.No. 742 ot 2013 in C.C.No.226 of 2012 confirmed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by Order dated 04-07-2014 ln Crl.R.P.No 36 rtf 2014. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014rcRLPMP. NO: 16142 OF 20141 Petition tlnder Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mermorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 226 of 2012 on the file of XIX Spl. Magistrate, Erramanzi!, Hyderabad pending this Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15211 OF 2014 Between: t\4/s. PAFAS BUILDERS, BANGALORE, Rep. by its Prop. G. Madhan Mohan Rqldy s/1r. G, Gopi Reddy, age 50 years, occ Business,.R/o. 129, First Froor, Lalbagh Fload, Bangalore - 560 027 AND PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 2 lM/s. VEERA BUILDERS, Rep. by its Partner c.V. Ramana Reddy, s/o. Jali $gdiy, agre.d {p years, Occ Business, Plot No.148, Eenadu Coloriy, Vivekanarrda Nagar Colony Extn. Kukatpally Hyderabad The state of relangana, Rep. by its p.p. High court at Hyderabad . RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash by setting aside the Order of the XIX Spl. N/agistrate Erramanzil dated 1711212013 in Crl.M.P.No. 744 of 2013 in C.C.No. 488 of 2012 confirmed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by Order dated .D4-O7-2014 in Crl.R.P.No. 38 of 2014. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 16180 OF 2014) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 488 of 2012 on the file of XIX Spi. tt/agistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad pending the Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15232 OF 2014 Between M/S. PARAS BUILDERS, BANGALORE, Rep. by its Prop. G. Madhan Mohan Reddy S/o. G. Gopi Reddy, age 50 years, Occ Business, R/o. 129, First Floor, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore - 560 O27 AND .;i. PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 M/S. VEERA BUILDERS, Rep. by its Partner C.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Jali Reddy, aged 45 years, Occ Business, Plot No.148, Eenadu Colony, Vivekananda Nagar Colony Extn. Kukatpally Hyderabad 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its P.P. High Court at Hyderabad RESPONDENTS/COMPLAI N ANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash by setting aside the Order of the XIX Spl. Magistrate Erramanzil dated 1711212013 in Crl.M.P.No. 741 ot 2013 in C.C.No. 190 of 2012 confirmed by the lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by Order dated 04-07- 2014|n Crl.R.P.No. 37 of 2AM. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CR P. NO: 16212OF 20141 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 in C.C.No. 190 of 2012 on the file of XIX Spl. Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad pending the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SRINIVASA SRIKANTH, f,dvocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Venkateswara Rao Uppala, Advocate for the respondent No.1/Complainant and Mr. M. Vivenkananda Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ':,'. IN THE HIGH COUR'T FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD A THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO N 15 1518 L52 1 1 20L4 Date:29,L2.2O25 Be n M/s.Paras Builders AND M/s.Veera Builders and another ..Petitioner Respondents COMMON ORDER: TheseCriminalpetitionshavebeenfiledaggrievedbythe ordersdatedo4.oT.2ol4passedbythelearnedMetropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl'R'P'Nos'35' 36' 37 and 38 of 2ol4confirmingtheordersdated|7.l2.2ol3passedbythe learned xlx Additional Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.Nos.741, 742, 743 and 744 of 2OL3 wherein the applicationsfiledbythepetitionerseekingtoSummon respondent No.l for production of the documents' namely Partnership Deed, Accounts Book of the Firm' Income Tax ReturnsoftheFirmforshowingtheamountofRs.golakhsas expenditure, were dismissed by the trial Court' Sincetheissueinallfourcriminalpetitionsisoneand the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order' -=\ :l I I I I t, l. I I I i 2 For the fac,ity of reference, crr.p.No.l52!23 0f 2014 is being referred to 2. Brief Facts of the case: 2'r' Respondent No.l fired compraint stating that he is the owner of the property bearing Municipar No,I/ I and purchasecr the same through registered sale deed and he started constnrction of bu,ding and he approached the petitioner and offered to entrust remaining works. Accordingly, petitioner has enterec' into agreement on 1g.0g.2010 with respondent No.r and agreecl to pay Rs.9o,o0,o00/- and upon the petitioner is entitled 60%o of constructed area incruding common area ancr parking area and respondent No.l is entitled 400/o of the remaini:rg area. 2'2' Ptrrsuant to the saicl agreement, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs'33 rakhs by way of c,sh and for the remaining amount of Rs.57 rakhs, he issued cheque bearing Nos. 524536, 524532, S24S39, S24S3g, 524542, S24S4A dated 2l.Og.2OLO, 22.09.2OtO, 1S.10.201O, 16.1O.2010 and 2S.tI.2OtO respectivt:ly. when the said cheques were presented, they were returned with a bank memo stating ",funds insufficient,. Thereafter', respondent No.1 issuecr a statutory regal notice and filed a cornplaint under section t3g of Negotiabre Instruments Act' 189'L(for short'NI ActJ. After the closure of cross examinati.n of the p.w.1, the petitioner filed applications 3 namely Crl.M.P.Nos.741, 742, 743 and 744 of 2013 under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to sLrmmon the documents pertaining to Partnership Deed, Accounts Book of the Firm, Income Tax Returns of the Firm. The learned XIX Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissed the said applications by order dated 17.12.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Crl.R.P.Nos. 35, 36,37 and 38 of 2Ol4 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the said Revision Petitions onO4.O7.2014. Hence, the present criminal Revision petitions were dismissed.

3. Heard Mr.Srinivasa Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venkateswara Rao Uppala, learned counsel for respondent No.1/'compLinant and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/ state.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of N.l. Act, are not attracted. He further submitted that, even according to the recitals of the agreement dated 19.08.2010, if the petitioner failed to pay the amount, respondent No.l ought to have approach the competent Civil Court or revoke the agreement. \i i I I I i I I I I i I 4 Howev€:r, 5' He further submitted that the alleged cheques were issueci only for the purpose of security and there is no regally enforc':able debt between the petitioner and respondent No. i. He also submitted that respondent No. r, in his cross_ exami.ation, specificaily admitted that he was ready to show the expenditure pertaining to Rs.g0,00,oo0/- spent by him. respondent No.1 failed to produce the said documents before l.he trial court. Hence, the petitioner had rightly filed the applica:ions invoking the provisions of section 91 of cr.p.c. seeking production of the said documents. The triar court, without properly appreciating the contentions raised by petitiont:r, dismissed the applications on rz.r2.2or3 and the learned sessions Judge also simply confirmed the order of the trial cotrrt, though the docurnents sought by the petitioner ar.e very mu(rh .equired for adjudication of the proceedings. Hence, the imp.gncd order dated o4.or.2oi4 passed by the rearned sessions Judge confirming the order dated rr.r2.2o13 of the learned I\Iagistrate are liable to be quashed. 6' Per contra, rearned counser appearing for respondent No.1 submittecl that the petitioner liled the applications before the trial cou't onry to protract the proceedings one way or other. Responde.:rt No. 1, after compretion of the statutory requirements under the N.r. Act, fired the compraint. H,e further submitted that the pr:titioner, after duly verifying the construction made by 5 respondent No.l and the expenditure which was incurred by respondent, had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9O,OO,00o/- and entered into agreement on 19.08.2010 with respondent No.1. out of the said amount, petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.33,00,ooo/- by way of cash and for the rgmaining amount, he had issued the cheques and the said cheques were dishonoured on the ground of 'lnsufficient funds'. Whether the debt is legally enforceable debt or not is the disputed question of fact and the same has to be decided by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the revision pelitions confirming the orders of the trial Court and there are no grounds in these criminal petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.1 have entered into an agreement on 19.08.2010 and as per the recitals of the agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9O,OO,00O/-, which was incurred by respondent No.l for construction of the schedule A, B and c properties. Even according to respondent No'1, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.33,O0,000/- in cash and for remaining amount, he issued cheques. 6 - 8 issuec by the petitioner The averments of the compraint reveal that the cheques were presented in the bank account of resporrdent No.l and the same were returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, respondent No.i had isr;ued the statutory notice as required under section 13g of N.l. Act and filed the complaint and the rearned Magistrate took ccgnizance by recording the sworn statement of the complainant. The record further reveals that after crosure of the cross-examination of pw. 1, the petitioner fired applications crl'M'p Nos'741, 742, 743 and 744 0f 2013, directing the respondent No' 1 to produce three (03) documents, ui^2. Partners hip Deed, Accounts Book of the firm reflecting expenditure of Rs.g0,0o,o00/- and Income tax returns of complai.ant. The rearned Magistrate dismissed the applications stating '-hat the documents sought were not required for deciding the issue of whether the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability under Section 13g of the N,r.Act and that the burden ries on the comprainant to prove his case. 9. It is not in dispute that out of Rs.90,O0,OOOf _, the petitioner had paid Rs.33,00, OOO / _ by way of cash to responder: t and for remaining amount he had issued cheques. The said cheques were dishonoured on the ground ,insufficient funds'in tjre accounts of the petitioner. 7

10. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, the cheques were issued only for security purpose and not in respect of legally enforceable debt and as per the recitals of the agreement dated 19.08.2010, respondent No'1 ought to have initiate the proceedings by cancelling the development agreement, on the other hand initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of N.l. Act are concerned, this Court is of the view that the above said contentions are disputed question of facts and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court and the trial Court while dismissing the apptications rightly held that the burden lies upon the respondent No.1 to Prove his case. 1 1. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned XIX Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, dated 17.t2.2O13, as confirmed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated O4.O7.2014 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C- 12. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed' It is needless to observe that the petitioner is entitled to raise all the grounds which are available to him. The trial court is directed to decide the cases in c.c.No s.487, 226, 488 and 190 0f 2012 on the file of learned XIX Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in accordance with law that uninfluenced by any of the \ 8 i' observations made in this order or impugned orders in these criminal petitions As a sequel, miscelraneous petitions, pending if stand closed. ^rry, //TRUE COPY/ SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIX Spl. Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad 2. one cc to sRl sRtNrvASA SRTKANTH Advocate [opUC] 3. one cc to sRt VENKATESWARA RAo uppALA Advocate [opUC] 4. one cc to THE PUBLTC pRosECUToR, High court for the state of Telangarra, Hyderabad. tOUTI

5. Two CD Copies M- ASR/PSL II € HIGH CCIURT DATED iilgl1212025 / / t \ x t * T'rtE S ( 2 0 Ft:8 2fliri * COMMO].I ORDER CRLP.No. 1 5223, 151 86, 15211 & 15232 ctf 2014 DISMTSSIN.G THE CRLPs \ \