The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Krishna Kishore Reddy Muthumula, S/o Late Ramachandp Reddy, R/o Flat No. 202, MIG-606, Yashoda Gokulam Apartments, KpHB Colony, Hyderabad - 500072. ..Respondentslcomplainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pledsed to Quash the proceedings in S.T.C.N.I. No. 7 of 2023 pending before the Court of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, initiated under Sections 138 & 142 olthe Nl Act. l.A. NO: I OF 5 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in. the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Gourt may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in S.T.C.N.I. No.7 of 2023 penOin! before the Court of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, including appearance of the petitioner,s pending disposal of the criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of G'iounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the aEutrieRts of Mr M P K ADITYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No. the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and, None appeared for the Respondent No The Court made the following: ORDER @7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATB OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16090 of 2025 Date: 08.12.2025 Betrrreen Sri P.V.Chary AND ...Petitioner The State c'f Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another ...Respondents Order This Crirninal Petition is f,rled seeking to quash the proceedingr; in STC NI No.7 of 2023, on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, fbr the offbnce punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrurnents Act, l88l (for short 'l.II Act').

2. Hearcl Mr.M.P.K.Aditya, learned counsel fbr the peritioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fbr responde:nt No.l -State. ..'t..

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of' the present oriminal petition are briefly stated that Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act. Respondent No.2 alteged that the petitioner had issued clreques bearing Nos.431952 and 431953 dated 25.09.2022 for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. When these cheques \ /ere presented to the bank, they were retumed with the endorsetrrent "insufficient funds." Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued a statutoqy notice, and after receiving a reply from the petitioner. he filed the present complaint. The learned Meffopolitan Magistrate, atier recording the sworn statement of Respondent No.2, took cogniz.ance and issued summons. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present pctition-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner velternently contended that the petitioner had issued the cheques only' firr collateral purposes and that there is no legally enforceable debt betu,een the petitioner and Respondent No.2. Hence, the cssential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act arc not attracted. He further subrnitted that Respondent No.2 trtist-tsc-d the cheques, which were admittedly issuecl for collateral purposes, and wrorrgfully initiated ot..\ proceedings 'Hgainst the petitioner. It is als. contended that ::3:: Respondent No.2 has not filed the work order dated lg.o2.2ozo executed br:tween the petitioner and Respondent No.2. tn the absence of this document, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for :he petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that Respondent No.2, after following the statutory procedure p:escribed under the Act, filed a private complaint befbre the learned x Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at l<.ukatpally. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn staternent of the complainant, took cognizance ald issuecl surllnlolls. 6- Insof-ar as the contention raised by the learned counsel tbr the petitioner thzrt the disputed cheques were not issued towards anv legally enlbrceable debt, that there was no legallv ",rtor."ut,t. liabitity betwt:en the petitioner and Respondent No.2, that the chgrques were issued only for collateral purposes, and that Respondent No. 2 misused the sztid cheques to initiate proceedings under Sectiop ljg ol the NI Act i:; c..cerned, these grounds clearly invol'e tlisputc-d :.42'" questions of fact. Suchr issues are i'equired to be adjudicated by the trial court after a full-fledged trial.

7. With regard to the non-filing of the document dated 19.02.2020 by Respondent No.2 before the trial coutt, the contentiort that the Magistrate took cognizantce in the alrsence of the said document is also a maffer to be examined and decided by the trial court during the course of trial. The Respondent No.2 in the document dated

19.02.2020 specifically submitted that he is not going to file any cases against the petitioner. In spite of the same, the Respondent No.2 lodged the complaint is not a ground to seek quashing of the proceedings by exercising the power confemed LIls 528 ot'BNSS.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner afier dictating the order requested this Court to dispense with the presence o[ the petitioner before the trial Court.

9. Taking into the consideration the abover submission, the presence of the petitioner in STC NI No.7 o1202-1. on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, is dispensed witl'r, subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused shall be represenled by his counsel on every date of hearing, unless his presence is specificallv required during the 5 course of the trial. In the event of non.appearance of petitioner/accused on any date so fixed by the trial court, the triat court shall be e,titled to proceed with the matter in accordance rvith law.

10. Subject ro the above directions, the Criminal petition is disposed of'. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- U.SUDHA //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, 1 The X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

2. The Station l1ouse Officer, Madhapur police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two ccs to rhe Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. M P.K. ADtTyA, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Collies RCiPSI, HIGH COURT DATED: AU12|2O25 3 _l E CRLP.No.{6090 of 2025 ,t HE STA !) (-) 2 { JA}l 2028 \n t'- r,l * Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Disposed of \