COMMON ORDER:

1. The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) have been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.Nos.373 of 2019 and 374 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.1

2. Heard Ms. Sri Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.2 is in attendance.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that it is alleged in the complaint that the cheque has been dishonoured as the signature of the drawer differed and as such it does not fall under the category of dishonour of cheque and would not attract the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned counsel further would submit that continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is mere abuse of process of law and prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioner.

4. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that when the cheque is dishonoured pursuant to an endorsement that ‘Drawer’s signature is not valid or differs’ also amounts to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is stated that there are

1 For short, N.I.Act

absolutely no ground for quashment of the case, prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the complaint would show that the subject cheque has been dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Drawer’s Signature Differs’. The question raised in this case is no more res integra. It is essential to refer to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in M/s. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and others, [2012(13) SCC 375], wherein the Gujarat High Court allowed the quash petitions and quashed 40 different complaints under Section 138 of the N.I.Act filed by the Accused on the ground that when the signatures of the drawer of the cheque do not match with the specimen signatures available with the Bank, would not attract the penal provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if the cheque is dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Signature differs’, it would attract the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. For ready reference, it is beneficial to extract the relevant Para No.15, which is as follows:

“15. The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in NEPC Micon Ltd. (supra) that the expression “amount of money …………. is insufficient” appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such “as account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer” are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the “signatures do not match” or that the “image is not found”, which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act. This Court has in the decisions referred to above taken note of situations and contingencies arising out of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the part of the drawers of the cheques which would inevitably result in the dishonour of the cheque issued by them. For instance this Court has held that if