S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein who is accused no. 1 in C. C. No. 92 of 1996 on the file of additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, avanigadda, in Krishna District invokes inherent powers and seeks quashing of the said proceedings.

( 2 ) A brief resume of facts is necessary. The 1st respondent herein supplied prawns worth Rs. 1,78,7387- in the month of march/april 1994 to the petitioner herein. A sum of Rs. 1,14,9367- was paid by the petitioner. For the balance amount a cheque bearing No. 952648, dated 27-7-1994 was issued. The cheque was dishonoured by State bank of India, Governorpet Branch, vijayawada, as there is no sufficient amount. The 1st respondent issued a notice dated 17-10-1994 demanding the petitioner to pay the cheque amount. A complaint was filed on 11-11-1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, avanigadda, alleging that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "n. I. Act") and Section 420 IPC. The same was forwarded under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C. to the police station, Avanigadda for investigation and report. The Police, avanigadda, registered it as Crime no. 25/1995 and investigated into and submitted a final report. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 3-11-1995. Thereafter another complaint was filed on 26-2-1996 with the same allegations mentioned in the 1st complaint dated 11-11-1994. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summons were issued on 12-4-1996. The 1st respondent is said to have made the petitioner and his father as accused in the said case.

( 3 ) THE petitioner and his father filed criminal Petition No. 1057 of 1997 before this court to quash the proceedings. This court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner s father by an order dt. 30-4-1998.

( 4 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 3345 of 1999 was filedbefore the Judicial First Class Magistrate, avanigadda by the petitioner to set aside the 2nd complaint alleging that the same is not maintainable. The Magistrate dismissed the said petition stating that the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner had to be construed with reference to the filing of the complaint but not for taking cognizance. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner once again approached this court for quashing the proceedings invoking inherent powers.

( 5 ) SRI K. Umapathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assails the order on the ground that the cause of action arises only once, under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the 2nd complaint is not maintainable. He also places reliance on the judgment reported in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil kumar. He also contends that the petition is barred by limitation and the 2nd complaint cannot be treated as a protest petition.

( 6 ) SRI K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st Despondent contends that the 1st respondent presented the original complaint in time in court and that has been forwarded to the police. The police filed the final report and the same was eaten away by white ants. Hence he filed 2nd complaint before the court, which was treated as continuation of the complaint under the protest petition. He supports the order of the lower court in taking cognizance of the case on the strength of 2nd complaint.

( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not a fit case where the inherent powers can be exercised by this court. The matter has to be relegated to trial.

( 8 ) ADVERTING to the same Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:"dishonour of Cheque for insufficiency, etc. , of funds in the account: Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with abanker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document