Back
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Chittuluri Venkata Subramanya Rajaram – Appellant
Versus
Kotagiri Shivani – Respondent
Key Points: - The accused offered three post-dated cheques as guarantor for his brother's balance of alimony and the court holds this falls within Section 138 NI Act liability (!) (!) (!) - Beena Shabeer v. Beena Shabeer (SC) clarified that liability cannot be avoided if the cheque is issued for discharge of any debt or other liability and returned unpaid; this applies to guarantor scenarios (!) (!) (!) - The cheques in question were issued voluntarily by the guarantor and not under coercion; liability is treated as debt or other liability of the guarantor (!) (!) - The High Court’s reasoning distinguishing Harish Kapoor’s case is rejected in favor of Beena Shabeer’s interpretation for guarantors (!) (!) - The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Section 138 proceedings is dismissed; the criminal petition is accordingly rejected (!) (!) - Facts: divorce by mutual consent, alimony of Rs.83,00,000; jewellery worth Rs.60,75,000 was returned; balance Rs.22,25,000 supported by post-dated cheques; cheques dishonored (!) (!) (!) (!) - The accused stood as guarantor for the balance payment and offered cheques; there was no coercion stated for issuance (!) (!) - Important cited jurisprudence: ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer; Harish Kapoor v. Akansha Gupta (distinguished) (!) (!) (!) (!)
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.113 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar registered against him for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I Act”).
2. The brief allegations of the private complaint are the complainant married one Chittuluri Venkata Subba Naveen Kumar cousin of accused—Chittuluri Venkata Subramanya Rajaram, who is looking after the family affairs. While so, complainant and Ch. V.S. Naveen Kumar took divorce by mutual consent in O.P.No.985 of 2012 on the file of Family Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Before taking divorce, the accused and Ch.V.S.Naveen Kumar agreed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.83 lakhs towards permanent alimony including the return of gifts presented by the father of complainant at the time of her marriage. On 07.02.2013, on which date divorce was sanctioned by the Court, the accused and his brother—Naveen Kumar returned jewellery worth Rs.60,75,000/- which were presented by the father of the complainant at the time of her marriage and for the balance amount of Rs.22,25,000/- acc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
