The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or cause injustice. The court emphasized the need for a detailed finding after considering all facts during the trial.

ORDER

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to call for the record and to quash the complaint in C.C.No 225 of 2018 on the file of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram, Krishna District.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the 1st respondent is complainant. To avoid confusion, hereinafter the petitioner will be referred as 'accused' and that of 1st respondent as 'complainant'.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case are that:

The complainant and the brother of the accused are bosom friends. Both the complainant and the GPA holder were brother and sister having joint family lands situated in Kaltur of Agiripilli Mandal and the accused used to receive amounts from the complainant's brother for his business purpose and used to repay the same amount. On 11.04.2016, the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2 crores from the complainant's brother for the purpose of development of business and for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ Rs.24% per annum and when demanded, either by complainant's brother or her brothers, the accused has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant's brother, in which the complainant is the first attestor and she is having knowledge of every transaction with the accused and her brother.

4. Thereafter, in spite of several demands made by the complainant as well as her brother to discharge the legally enforceable debt, on 16.01.2018, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant's brother, vide cheque bearing No.779922 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Hyderabad Branch, for Rs.2,50,00,000/-. The complainant's brother has presented the said cheque in his bank, i.e., Axis Bank, Gannavaram for the purpose of collection, but on 19.02.2018, the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Gannavaram informed the complainant's brother that the cheque issued by the accused is a fraudulent as the cheque is coloured Xerox copy of cheque and return memo issued by the ICICI Bank along with the counter letter to the complainant and the same was confirmed by the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Chennai in its cheque returned memo dated 23.01.2018. On receiving the memo from the bank authorities, the complainant has issued a legal notice dated 16.03.2018 to the accused and he received the postal acknowledgment dated 19.03.2018 and the accused has issued a reply notice dated 27.03.2018 and thereafter, the complainant has presented the present complaint, which is impugned in the present Criminal Petition to take action against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred, 'the NI Act', for short).

5. Learned counsel for the accused would agitate to quash the C.C.No.225 of 2018 in the present Criminal Petition on two grounds: viz., (i) the GPA was executed on 29.01.2018, but the recital in the GPA shows that the cheque was bounced on 19.02.2018 and a future bouncing waste was mentioned in the same and that itself is evident that the GPA is ante-dated, on such GPA the complainant can maintain the complaint; and the second ground that is agitated by the learned counsel for the accuser is that GPA holder can only initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the GPA holder cannot file a complaint in her own name as if her is a complainant and the complaint would implicitly show that GPA holder herself has filed the complaint, as such, the complaint is not valid and hence pray to quash the complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the accused relied on the judgment of Apex Court in A.C. Narayana Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 11 SCC 790 wherein it is held that where the payee is a proprietary concerned, the complaint or offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be filed: (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himse