The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, and the trial court must determine the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

ORDER :

(Sujana Kalasikam, J.)

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.5546 of 2022 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C stating that he is an Advocate and in the year 2017, the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Sri Vinayaka Paper and Boards Limited, approached him in a case pertaining to the aforesaid company before the National Company Law Tribunal and availed legal services. The petitioner and respondent No.2 got acquaintance with each other. In the year 2019, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to meet his personal expenses. The receipt of the said amount has been duly acknowledged by the petitioner by executing a promissory note with a promise to repay the said amount within a period of two (2) months. After two months, on several demands, the petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos. 000014 and 000015 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. It is further stated that the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to present the said cheques after 15 days from the date of issuance of the cheques. On his request, respondent No.2 presented the same after 15 days in the bank and the same were dishonored with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds'. It is further stated that the petitioner issued the cheques to respondent No.2 in discharge of a legally enforceable debt purportedly with an intention to cheat him.

3. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint before the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. The present case pertains to cheque bearing No.000015 dated 06.04.2020 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same numbered as C.C.No.5546 of 2022.

4. Heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A.P. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Smt. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana, 2018 1 SCC 638, wherein it is categorically held that when there is a specific bar for doing money lending business that too with his own client, the act of respondent will amounts to professional misconduct. He further stated that except stating that the petitioner approached respondent No.2 to appear in a case before NCLT on his behalf, but the particulars of the case were not provided. He further submitted that respondent No.2 have advanced money, that too a hefty sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in cash, during the lock down period and the same indicates that he was trading in hard cash and black money and there is no proof of like tax returns to that effect. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the above said judgment relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand as he is not claiming his fees from the petitioner and the petitioner borrowed the money from him and that lending of money is no way concerned with the advocate and client relationship. The case before NCLT was already concluded and due to the acquaintance, in COVID-19 period, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 for hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- for his personal expenses and respondent No.2 did not claim any interest, as such, it is not the case under the money