ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 03-09-2013 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 579 of 2013 in C.C. No. 453 of 2012 on the file of II Special Magistrate Hyderabad.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’). The respondent No. 2 alleged that in the month of September 2010, the petitioner requested him for a loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs to meet his urgent business needs and issued the cheque bearing No. 050383 dated 10-03-2012 for Rs.1.00 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank, Hyderabad Main Branch belonging to SS Electricals in favour of the respondent No. 2 for repayment of loan amount and the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Trial was conducted by the II Special Magistrate Hyderabad. When the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner-accused filed a petition under Section 254 (2) read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Hyderabad main branch, Himayat Nagar, along with all the documents pertaining to account No. 630505026294 of M/s. S.S. Electricals to prove that he was not concerned with the alleged cheque and alleged account. But the same was dismissed by the trial court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the account belonged to the father of the petitioner and the cheque was also issued by the father of the petitioner. The authorized signatory was only the petitioner’s father. To prove that the petitioner was not the executant of the cheque in question nor the cheque was issued by him and that there did not exist any legally enforceable debt, the petitioner filed the above petition, but the trial court erroneously dismissed the same, the petition ought to have been allowed and all necessary opportunities to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of NI Act ought to have been provided to the petitioner. If the petition was not allowed setting aside the order dated 03-09-2013, the petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and prayed to allow the petition.

5. Perused the record. The impugned order of the learned II Special Magistrate, Hyderabad would disclose that during the cross examination of PW-1, it was suggested to him that the accused/petitioner issued Ex.P2 cheque in blank to one M. Purushottam and though the accused/petitioner discharged his liability towards Purushottam, the said Purushottam did not return Ex.P2 cheque. Ex.P8 was the reply notice issued by M.Srinivas, Advocate on behalf of the accused/petitioner to the counsel for the complainant in reply to Ex.P4 statutory notice. In Para No. 5 of Ex.P8, it was stated that the accused/petitioner approached one M. Purushottam for a loan of Rs.1.00 lakh and the said Purushottam gave the said amount after obtaining empty cheques and promissory notes for security of the amount advanced. The empty cheques contained the cheque No. 050383 (the subject cheque). By that averment in Ex.P8, the petitioner admitted that he issued the subject cheque, as such dismissed the petition.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in RajaramYadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2013 SC 3081 enumerated the following principles to be borne in mind by the courts while considering petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

“(a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?

(b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.

(c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just deci