ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „the Code‟) has been filed by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.7 seeking quashment of the Proceedings in CC No.238 of 2020 on the file for the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short „the N.I.Act‟) against them.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the Charge Sheet allegations, are as follows:

a) A.1 is a Company. A2 is the Managing Director and Authorised Signatory of A.1-Company. A.3 to A.7 are the Directors of A.1-Company.

b) For business purpose, A.2 borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from Respondent No.2/Complainant as hand loan promising to repay the same within few days. The transaction took place at the residence of the Complainant at Tanuku in the presence of Sri Miriyala Nagewswara Rao and Kanakamedala Govinda Rao. The Complainant informed about borrowing the amount to A.3 to A.7.

c) A.2 issued a cheque bearing No.000123, dated 19.08.2019, for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, in favour of the Complainant towards discharge of the debt.

d) Complainant presented the said cheque on 22.08.2019 and his banker, Indus Ind Bank Limited, Tanuku Branch, on 23.08.2024 intimated that the said cheque was dishonoured that „Kindly contact Drawer, Drawee Bank and please present again”.

e) The Complainant got issued a Legal Notice dated 06.09.2019.

The Notices sent to A.1, A2 and A.7 were returned on 07.09.2019 with an endorsement “Left without instructions”. Notice sent to A.3 and A.5 was returned on 16.09.2019 with an endorsement “1st intimation served on 07.09.2019 and

2nd intimation served on 09.09.2019. Notices sent to A.4, A.5 were returned with an endorsement „refused‟.

f) Complainant filed a Complaint against all the accused, which was taken on file and numbered as CC No.238 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Questioning the same, the present Criminal Petition has been filed for quashment of the Proceedings against them.

3. Heard Sri Bathula Raj Kiaran, learned counsel representing Ms.Jami Madhavi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State and Sri K.Sri Sai Sanjay, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that it is not a case of dishonour of cheque and a false case was lodged against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The cheque has been returned with an endorsement „contact drawer, drawee bank and present again‟. When there is no cause of action to attract the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, continuation of the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the contentions raised by the Petitioners are all matter of trial. Truth or otherwise of the case would reveal when the Bank Manager is examined before the Court below to enquire about the bank details and the balance amount lying in the account of the Petitioners. Then only, the trial Court had to decide whether the endorsement of the Bank officials would amount to dishonour of cheque or not. It is not a fit case for quashment of the proceedings at this stage. In support of the contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras vide Order dated 28.06.2023 passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.27764 and 17078 of 2022.

6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for quashment of the offence for the reasons that the subject cheque has been returned with an endorsement „contact the drawer and present again‟. As r