The High Court · 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 Quash the proceedings in C.C. Nl, No.223712O24., lodged by 2nd Respondent before The Hon'ble Xll Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally Hyderabad., insofar as the petitioner/Sole Accused is concerned. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased STAY all further proceedings in CC.NI. No.2237 of 2024., lodged by 2nd respondent befoe the Hon'ble Xll lvletropolitan Magistrate Court at Manoranian Court Comple-x Nampally. 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 the Public Prosecutor ---------------- (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and none for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16O24 of 2025 Date:16.12.2025 Between: Gopala Srihitha. AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad and alother. ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents This C-riminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.NI.No.2237 of 2024, on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, registered for the offence punishable qnder Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 (for short " the Act, 188 I 'J.

2. Heard Mr. M.S.Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case arising in the present criminal petition are that respondent No.2 Iiled a private complaint against the petitioner for I 2 the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 stating that the petitioner and her husband approached him for a loan of Rs.20,O0,O0O/- and he has given a hand loan of Rs.20,00,0O0/- to thcm on 22.12.2023, and they issued two post-dated cheques of Rs.10 lakhs cach. When the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.000370 dated 29.O1.2024 for a sum of Rs. 1O,OO,00O/-, drawn on ICICI Bank Kokapet Branch, it was returned with an endorsement "Funds lnsufficient" on 30.01.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued legal notice to the petitioner on 19 .O2.2O24 through RPAD and the same was received by the petitioner on 21.02.2024. Hence, respondent No.2 liled a private complaint. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of respondent No.1, took cognizance. Accordingly, the matter is coming up lbr trial. Hence, the present criminal petition is liled. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2 irnd the ingredients of the Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, 1881 are not applicable. I i

4.1 . He lurther submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank, Kokapet on 24 .O8.2O24 , wherein she specifically stated that she missed the cheque book pertaining to the account bearing No.72250150OO3i and requested the bank to close the account and stop all the cheques-. He // :l also submitted that the petitioner has not issued the subject cheque in favour of respondent No.2 and there is no legally enforceable debt between them. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of the law.

4.2. ln support of the above contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Khurana us. Sta,te of (NCT of Delhi) and Anrl in Criminal Appeal No.913 of 20O9.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint to the poiice about loss of her two cheque books; she submitted a representation to the Bank that she missed her two cheque books and requested to stop all the cheques pertaining to the account bearing No.72250 15O0031, whether there is any privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.2 or not and whether the subject cheque issued is about legally enlorceablc debt or not, are disputed questions of facts and the same has to be adjudicated before the trial Court after fuil-fledged trial and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions for the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 in his complaint specifically made an averment that he gave an amount of Rs.20,OO,00O/- to the petitioner and her husband towards hand loan, in cash, and the petitioner had issued two post- ' s.l.p.trto.8059 of zooz l l .+ dated cheques. When the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.0O037O dated 29.01.2024 for a sum of Rs. 1O,O0,OOO/-, drawn on ICICI Bank Kokapet Branch, it was returned with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" on 30.01.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2 got issued legal notice to the petitioner on 19.02.2024 through RPAD and the same rnas reccived by the petitioner on 2l.O2.2O24.

7. [n respcct of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.2 arrd also there is no legally enforceable debt between them are conccrnerl, this Court is of the considered view that the same is disputed questior-r of facts and the same has to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. fl. It is relevant lo mention that the petitioner has not lodged any police complaint bcfore the concerned police station about missing of the chcque-books except submission of representation to the bank on

24.O8.2024.

9. It is already stated supra that whether therc is any privity of contract betu'een the petitioner and respondent No.2 or not and whether the disputed cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2 is torvards legally enforceable debt or not, are disputed questions of facts, and the same have to be adjudicated in course of trial before the trial Court. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for,.-the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and ) circumstances of the case and this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings while exercising the powers conferred under Scction 528 of the BNS. lO. Acr:ordingly, the Criminal Pe tition is dismissed I I 1. While dictating the order, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner in CC.Nl.No.2352 of 2024, on the fi1e of XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at M:lnoranjan Court Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

12. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of lhc case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, lhe presence ol the petitioner/ accused in CC.NI.No.2237 of 2024, on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate Cor-rrt at Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall be represented through her counsel on each and every date of hearing. If the presence of the petitioner is required, she shall appear before the trial Court. In case of her non- appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial Court for her appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

13. [t is made clear that any of the observations made in the present order are confined to the disposal of this case only. The trial Court is 6 directed to adjudicate the proceedings in CC.NI.No.2237 of 2024 on merits and basing upon the evidence adduced by either of the parties. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY' Sd/- T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Xll Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad. 2. The SHO, PS Shainiyathgunj, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, 4. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED SANAULLAH FARHAN Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad (OUT) GE/DL fw HIGH COURT DATED"16t121202s ORDER CRLP.No.16024 of 2025 I r\ lHi s 14 Y ,<, * \ u) 2t26 2 * DISMISSING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS J-res aaf t laa