1. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1158 of 2012 on the file of the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. He seeks for quashment of the case. The 1st respondent is the complainant. He lodged a complaint with the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad that the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,500/- on 05-7-2009 and that the cheque stood bounced. The 1st respondent consequently laid the complaint, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1158 of 2012. The petitioner sought for the quashment of the same.

2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are tenant and landlord. There appears to be disputes between them. Whatever the reason be, the 1st respondent filed a rent control case against the petitioner for his eviction. He succeeded before the Trial Court, in the appeal as well as in the revision before the High Court. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court and obtained stay. Inter alia, it would appear that the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to deposit agreed rents every month and that it would also appear that there is a default clause. Hence, albeit the amount involved is quite meager