COMMON ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.3400 of 2022 are complainants, and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5217 of 2023 are the accused, in C.C No.182 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District (which was transferred to Special Magistrate Court, Tanuku, West Godavari), registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Criminal Petition No.3400 of 2022 is filed seeking a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the subject C.C. expeditiously, whereas the other Criminal Petition No.5217 of 2023 is filed by the accused seeking to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

2. Since these Criminal Petitions arise out of the same Calendar case and are connected, at the request of the both the counsel, they are being disposed of, by this common order.

3. The allegations, in brief, in the private complaint are as follows :

The complainants are the wife and children of Late Mallampalli Ravi Soma Sekhar, who died in testate on 06.07.2017, leaving behind as his Class- I legal heirs. During his lifetime, accused No.1, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner i.e. accused No.2, had borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- from the complainant No.1 on 24.06.2013 by way of RTGS for his business purposes by executing a promissory note and agreeing to repay the same as and when demanded, with 24% compound interest per annum. Accused No.2 paid the monthly interest regularly for the amount due under the said promissory note. Subsequently, in October 2016, accused No.2 sought further financial assistance of Rs.1,50,00,000/- out of which Rs.1,10,00,000/- was arranged on 04.11.2016 by Late Mallampalli Ravi Soma Sekhar through RTGS, for which demand promissory note was executed in favour Late Ravi Soma Sekhar, agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at 24% per annum. In order to secure both the loans, the accused deposited title deeds i.e. Registered Sale deed dated 06.04.2013 bearing document No.1517/2013 of SRO, Bheemunipatnam on 05.11.2016, thereby creating an equitable mortgage, and executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of complainant No.1 and Late Ravi Soma Sekhar confirming the deposit of title deeds. The accused initially paid interest irregularly. They failed to repay the principal amounts also. After the death of Ravi Soma Sekhar, the complainants, being legal heirs, became entitled to recover the dues. Upon repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- bearing No.152169 drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam Branch VIP RD, CBM Compound in favor of complaint No.1 towards part payment. The cheque was presented by complainant No.1 on 03.02.2021 through her banker namely HDFC Bank Ltd., Tanuku Branch but the same was dishonoured on 04.02.2021 with endorsement 'insufficient funds'.

A statutory legal notice dated 11.02.2021 was served on the accused on 13.02.2021, but the accused neither responded nor made payment within the stipulated period. Consequently, the complainants filed the present complaint within limitation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque.

4. Learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no legally enforceable debt. He submits that the complainant, instead of filing a Civil Suit for recovery of amount basing on the promissory notes, resorted to filing of present complaint only with a view to harass the accused. He further contended that the cheque was issued in the yer 2021 with reference to alleged debt under the promissory notes dated 24.06.2013 and on 04.11.2016, which are time barred and those promissory notes are not enforceable under law. He submits that the debts, for repayment of which the subject cheques were issued, are time barred ones, as the subject promissory notes were executed in the years 2013 and 2016, an