K. Hymavathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 843

A. S. BOPANNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
K. Hymavathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mrs. Mithu Jain, Adv. Mr. Aman Chawla, Adv. Mr. Karan Dua, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Jain, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Rajoria, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv. Mr. R.vijay Nandan Reddy, Adv. Mr. V.krishna Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR

Judgement Key Points

How to determine whether a time-barred debt can still support a criminal proceeding under Section 138 NI Act when a cheque is issued as part of a debt contract? What is the applicability of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act to promissory notes tied to time-barred debts in NI Act proceedings? What are the circumstances under which a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash or restore Section 138 NI Act complaints?

How to determine whether a time-barred debt can still support a criminal proceeding under Section 138 NI Act when a cheque is issued as part of a debt contract?

What is the applicability of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act to promissory notes tied to time-barred debts in NI Act proceedings?

What are the circumstances under which a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash or restore Section 138 NI Act complaints?

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is assailing the judgment dated 12.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Criminal Petition No. 12675 of 2018 and analogous petitions. Through the judgment, the High Court while allowing the petitions before it, quashed the criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 2, being C.C. No.681 of 2017 and analogous complaints on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. The appellant is the complainant in CC No. 681 of 2017 and the other complaints, filed against the accused – respondent no.2 under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short). The appellant is therefore before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the first of the above appeal are that the appellant and respondent no.2 are known to each other. Due to their acquaintance respondent no.2 approached the appellant to borrow a sum of Rs 20,00,000/-stating that he required the amount to finance his son’s higher ed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 843

A. S. BOPANNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAK. Hymavathi – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent

How to determine whether a time-barred debt can still support a criminal proceeding under Section 138 NI Act when a cheque is issued as part of a debt contract?

What is the applicability of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act to promissory notes tied to time-barred debts in NI Act proceedings?

What are the circumstances under which a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash or restore Section 138 NI Act complaints?

Cases Referred (5)

A. S. BOPANNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
K. Hymavathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent