1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 413 of 2017 on the file of III Special Magistrate, Miyapur.

2. (a) Brief facts of the case are that complainant and accused are relatives to each other; while so, on 05.09.2014 the father of the accused went to the house of complainant and in the meantime, three unknown persons entered the house of complainant representing that they were Income Tax Officers (IT officers) and wanted to search house and father of the accused acted as a mediator and promised that he would settle the matter; believing his false representation the complainant and her husband paid a total amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- on different dates to settle the income tax claim.

(b) It is the further case of complainant that father of the accused and imposters got issued a forged letter dated 06.11.2014 said to have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax stating that total tax amount along with 2% penalty has been remitted to the IT Department and there were no dues to the Department and file relating to IT dues has been closed. Thereafter, when the complainant and her husband through their Chartered Accountant came to know that it was a fake letter and father of the accused and three imposters cheated them, immediately the husband of complainant went to Gachibowli PS and lodged complaint. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Cr. No. 423 of 2015 under Sections 419, 420 and 471 IPC.

(c) Thereafter, the accused approached the complainant and her husband to settle the matter on behalf of his father. Considering their relationship, the complainant and her husband agreed to settle the issue; accused promised to pay the entire amount and accordingly, he issued three cheques dated 23.01.2017 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- 6,35,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- drawn on HSBC, Somajiguda, Hyderabad in favour of complainant. When the said cheques were presented with her banker i.e. DCP Bank, Madhapur on 23.01.2017, they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds vide cheque return memo dated 24.01.2017. Following due process the complainant filed complaint against accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act) which was taken cognizance by Magistrate and numbered as C.C. No. 413 of 2017.

Hence, the instant petition for quashment.

3. Heard arguments of Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner/accused and Sri Gulam Mustafa Rabbani, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/complainant.

4. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true, still the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act are not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, as per complainant the father of the accused allegedly collected amounts from the complainant and her husband on the pretext of giving bribe to three persons who visited their house to conduct search in the guise of IT officers and complainant and her husband paid Rs. 18 lakhs in installments to the father of accused to bribe the imposters to close the tax claim against them. Thus, even according to the complainant, the amounts were paid for an illegal purpose i.e. to bribe the impersonators. Since the consideration and object are illegal, no liability can be fastened on the father of the accused for return of the amount and therefore the Court cannot entertain the claim against the father of the accused or much-less against the accused even assuming he stood as surety to repay the amount on behalf of his father. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. P.G. Pankajakshi Amma vs. Mathai Mathew (dead) through LRs. (2004) 12 SCC 83

2. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 15 SCC 222

(b) Secondly, learned counsel while admitting the accused issued three cheques on behalf of his father, would argue that the accused cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of