ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), is filed quash the proceedings in C.C. No.114 of 2018 on the file of the I Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. 2nd respondent herein/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act, 1881’). The allegations, in brief, of the complaint may be stated as follows:

Complainant devasthanam issued a paper Notification dated 18.05.2016 proposing to conduct public auction and inviting applications under e-procurement system and also sealed tenders for license rights for spot photos at Up Hills of Indrakeeladri for a period of two years commending from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2018. Public auction was conducted on 26.05.2016 and the petitioner/accused was declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.36,06,000/- per year for license rights for spot photos at Up Hills of Indrakeeladri for first year from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017 and on enhancement of 10% on the said annual amount for the second year commencing from 01.06.2017 to

31.05.2018, and the petitioner/accused paid the annual rent amount for the first year.

According to auction conditions, the petitioner/

accused has to pay half of the annual license fee for the second year commencing from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2018, in advance, by way of postdated cheques and accordingly he issued a postdated cheque bearing No.811302 for Rs.19,83,300/- dated 30.04.2017 drawn on Syndicate Bank (Main), Vijayawada-1. As per the assurance of the petitioner/accused, the complainant presented the said cheque in its Banker viz. YES Bank Limited, Vijayawada-10 on 10.05.2017, but the same was returned under a return Memo dated 11.05.2017 with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. After issuing statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 (b) of the Act, 1881, as the petitioner/ accused failed to pay the amount covered under the dishonoued cheque within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Act, 1881, the present complaint came to be filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-

State.

4. Applications were invited by Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam under E-

procurement system and also sealed tenders for license rights for spot photos at Up Hills of Indrakeeladri for a period of two years commending from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2018, through a paper Notification dated 18.05.2016. E.M.D. of Rs.5,00,000/- was fixed by the Devasthanam. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused was declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.36,06,000/- per year. Accordingly, the petitioner/ accused paid annual rent of Rs.36,06,000/- for the period commencing from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017 by virtue of six demand drafts. Thereafter, towards half of the annual license fee payable in advance for the second year commencing from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2018, the petitioner/accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.811302 for Rs.19,83,300/- dated 30.04.2017 drawn on Syndicate Bank (Main), Vijayawada-1, with an assurance that the said cheque will be honoured on presentation of the same. The complainant presented the said cheque in its Banker viz. YES Bank Limited, Vijayawada-10 on 10.05.2017, but the same was returned with a return Memo dated 11.05.2017 with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant, after complying with the essential conditions as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, filed the present complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present complaint has to be quashed for the reason that there is no legally enforceable debt; that even as per the complaint, the subject cheque was issued as a security; that as is evident from the complaint, the subject cheque is postdated cheque and the same was issued to pay annual license fee in advance fo