Hyderabad High Court · 2025

2. Sri Maythuku Sushil Kumar,, S/o M. Shamappa, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o Hno.9-1-1/70, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Langer House, Hvderabad ...RE''.NDENT/..M'LATNANTS 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 Quash the proceedings in STC Nl. No. 172 of 2025., lodged by 2nd Respondent pending before Xl Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendarnagar, R.R.Dist., in so far as the petitioner/Sole Accused is concerned, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

1.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Membrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in STC Nl. No. 172 of 2025., lodged by 2nd Respondent pending before Xl Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendarnagar, R.R.Dist., and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHAMMED SANAULLAH FARHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COIIRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRTENTVAS RAO CRIIIIINAL PEIITION No.16O0B of 2O2S Date O4.L2.2O25 Between: Gopala Srihitha. Pe titioner/ Sole accused The State of Telangana and another. AND Respondents ORDER: This criminal Petition is liled under section s2g Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSSJ by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in src.NI.No.172 of 2025, on the lile of learned Additinal Judicial Magistrate of First class at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.l.Act.

2. Heard Mr. Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jitendar Rao veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.l-State. 2

3. Fircts giving rise to filing of the present criminal petition are that, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sectionl38 of the Neg;otiable Instruments Act. Wherein he stated. that he gov€ a.rL amount of Rs.5,0O,000/- towards hand loan to the husband of the petitioner. When he demanded for repelrrrent of the said amount, the petitioner had issued cheque bearing No.000.39 dated 03.05.2025 for the said amount, drawn on ICICI l3ank Kokapet Branch and the said cheque was presented in his bank and the s€une was dishonoured on

05.05.i1025 with an endorsement uide Bank memo "Account Closed''. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued statutory notice to thr: petitioner and her husband on 16.05.2025. Accordingly, petitioner and her husband have jointly issued reply notice dated 02.06.2025 through their counsel- Thereafter complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate, after t-ecording the statement of respondent No.l, took cogniz:rnce. Hence, the present criminal petition is filed. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there

4. is no legal enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2 zrnd the ingredients for the offence under Sections tgS oFttx: Act are not attracted. -/ 3

4.1. He submitted that the petitioner gave a representation to the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank, Kokapet on 24.08'2024 wherein she specifically stated that she missed the two (02) cheque books pertaining to the account bearing No.7225O15OOO31 and requested the bank to close the said account and stop all the cheques. He also submitted that the petitioner has not issued the above said cheque in favour of respondent No.2.

4.2. He further submitted that petitioner in her reply to the legal notice of respond.ent No.2 specifically stated that neither the cheque was issued in favour of respondent No.2 nor she has received any amount from the respondent No.2. Inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clearly an abuse of process of law.

4.3 In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'lcle Apex court in Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of (NCT of Delhi| and Anrr. 1 1zoos1 6 scc72 a =. 4

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submit:ted that the petitioner has not lodged any compliant to the Police about loss of her two (O2) cheque books; she only submit:ted representation to the Bank to close the account and stop all the cheques pertaining to the account bearing lio.722:5o1500031, In the reply notice also, the petitioner has not demanded the respondent No.2 to return the cheque bearinl3 No.O00399. He further submitted that even according to the i1v€rrrreots made in the complaint, the respondent No.2 transferred the amounr of Rs.5,OO,0OO/- by way of RTGS to the ac<:ount of the husband of the petitioner and she issued cheque, bearing No.00039 on 03.O5.2025, in respect of legally enforcr:able debt only. Whether there is any privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the above cheaquLe is issued for legally enforceable debt or not, are disputr:d question of facts and the sarne have to be adjudi<:ated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. Basing on the said grounds, the petitioner is not entitled to seel.. quash the proceedings while invoking the provisions under iiection 528 of BNS.

6. [Iaving cgnsidered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available 5 on record, it reveals that the respondent No' 2 in his cornplaint specifically made an averment that he gave an amount of Rs.5,o0,o00/- to the husband of the petitioner towards hand loan and the same was transferred by way of RTGS transaction. when the respondent No.2 demanded for re-payment of the said amount, the petitioner had issued cheque bearing No.OO039 dated 03.05.2025 with respect to the above said amount which was received by the her husband and the said cheque was returned with a bank memo ,.Account cl0sed." The record further reveals that respondent No.2, after foltowing the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act' issued statutory notice on 16.05.2025 and the petitioner and her husband jointly issued reply notice through their counsel on 02.06.2025. Thereafter, tJre respondent No. 2 filed complaint in the month of JulY, 2025.

7. With respect to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner whether there is any privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and whether the cheque was issued in respect of legally enforceable debt or not, this Court of the considered view that 6 the s:rme are disputed question of facts and the same have to be de:ided by the triar court after fufl-fledged triar.

8. [n Raj Kumar Khurana supra, the Hon,ble Supreme court held that Section 13g of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be strictly construed, and the offence is made out only when the cheque is dishonored for reasons expressly conternplated by the statute namely insufficiency of funds or exceecling arrangement. A cheque returned with the remark "reported lost by the drawer" does not satisfy the statutory ingredients, and prosecution cannot be sustained unless the compl:lint itself discloses a legally enforceable debt and a dishor:or falling squarely u,ithin Section 13g. '[he principte in rhe above said judgment does not appry 9 ' here recause the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonored with the clear endorsement "Account closed,, which directl]' attracts Section 13g. Respondent No. 2 transferred Rs.S,oO,ooo I - by RTGS into the account of husband of petitiorrer, when complainant demanded repa5rment, the petitiorLer had issued the cheque that was dishonoured. It is already stated supra for whether there is any privity of contract betwee, the petitioner and respondent No.2 and whether disputed cheqDrs issued by the petitioner in favour of \ ,'.u 7 respondent No.2 towards legally enforceable debt, are disputed question of facts, and the same have to be decided by the trial Courtafterfull-fledgedtrialonlyandthatstagehasnotbeen reached so far' l0.Fortheforegoingreasons,thisCourtdoesnotfindany ground to quash the proceedings in S'T'C'No' 172 | of 2025 against the Petitioner. ll.Accordingly,thecriminatpetitionisdismissed'Itis madeclearthatanyoftheobservationsmadeinthepresent order are conflned to the disposal of this case only and the trialCourtisdirectedtodecidetheSTC.NI.No.lT2of2o2Son its own merits and basing upon the evidence going to be adduced by either of the parties, in accordance with [aw' Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any' shall stand ,/TRUE COPY" - K. BHAV ANI SW AMY SECTION OFFICER toPucl closed. To,

1. 2

3. 4

5. Two CD CoPies pk \cr HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:Ct4l12lZA2S cr{D etz CRLP.No.1G003 of 2025 SIA ? I Jrt{ 2C6 * t CRIMINAI. PEITITION IS DISMISSED. ceq?a& % ,,