2019 Supreme(AP) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Chokkakula Eswara Rao - Appellants
Vs.
Badireddi Suryanarayana and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 12162, 12170 and 12172 of 2014
Decided On : 19-07-2019

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quash of criminal proceedings - The respondent No. 1 is the complainant in all the three petitions. Different complainants filed private complaints against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which are registered as C.C. No. 153, 154 and 155 of 2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapu Kota, Vizianagaram. The details of date of debt, debt amount, cheque number, date of presentation are given - The contention of the respondent No. 1 - complainant that the petitioner borrowed different amounts on different dates shown in the table for his business purpose and family necessities agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. and executed promissory notes on the even dates in favour of the complainant. Despite demands made by the respondent No. 1 complainant, the petitioner did not repay the same. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 926445 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Gajuwaka Branch (old) Visakhapatnam (C.C. No. 153 of 2013) and cheque bearing No. 306711 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Gajuwaka Branch, Visakhapatnam (C.C. No. 154 of 2013) and another cheque bearing No. 992319 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Gajuwaka Branch (old) Visakhapatnam (C.C. No. 155 of 2013) towards principal amount due under the promissory notes – Held, the cheques were allegedly issued by the petitioner and on presentation of the cheques by the complainant, they were dishonoured and notices in compliance of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act were issued on specific dates and receipt of notices were acknowledged by the petitioner, but for one reason or the other, postal acknowledgments are not returned to the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1. More diligently, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 addressed letters to the Superintendent of Post Offices complaining lapses of the postal department in returning postal acknowledgment and with great sense of responsibility, the Superintendent of Post Offices addressed letter intimating exact date of service of notice issued by the complainant to the petitioner within one month. Even by the 1 date of receipt of information from the postal department, still more than 15 days time is available to file complaint from the date of cause of action arise under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but the complainant filed compliant beyond one month from the date of cause of action arose as per clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of N.I. Act and no petition is filed to condone delay invoking clause (b) of the proviso to Section 142 of the N.I. Act, which enables the complainant to seek condonation of delay subject to satisfaction of Magistrate. In the absence of condonation of delay, when the complaint is field beyond one month from the date of cause of action arose under clause (c) of the proviso to - Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the same are hopelessly barred by limitation and taking cognizance by the Magistrate accepting the allegations made in the complaints on their face value is erroneous. Consequently, the proceedings are liable to be quashed – Petition allowed