APHC010471492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9345/2025 Between:

1. NANDHIGAM KOTESWARARAO, S/O RAGHAVARAO, AGED ABOUT

42 YEARS, HINDU, PROPRIETOR, M/S VENKATARAMANA MEDICAL STORE, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

RESPONDENT

2. P N SUBRAMANYAM, S/O P.N. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, MAKINAVARIPALLI VILLAGE RAMAGIRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.551 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The cheque in dispute is stated to have been issued on 02.07.2021, and it pertains to an account maintained with the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad, covering an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is an admitted position that the State Bank of Hyderabad stood amalgamated with the State Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2017, as per circular/press release dated 20.03.2017 and consequently, cheques issued from the said bank were rendered inoperative or invalid beyond 31.03.2018.

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Ganta Kavitha Devi v. Madala Ananth Kumar in Crl.P. No. 8827 of 2022, by order dated 25.10.2024, had, in analogous circumstances, quashed proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the NI.Act’), by relying on the two decision of the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad rendered in Premand Prusty v. Sita Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7745 and Archana Singh Gautham v. State of U.P, Application No.9536 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024

5. The High Court of Allahabad in Archana Singh Gautham supra at para Nos.7 to 9 and 12, it is held as under:

“7...From the perusal of Section 138 N.I. Act, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same was dishonoured, then there is no liability under Section 138 N.1. Act would be attracted, and the cheque of Allahabad Bank is invalid after 30.09.2021 after merging the Allahabad Bank into the Indian Bank on 01.04.2020. Therefore, dishonouring such cheques, after 30.09.2021 will not attract liability u/s 138 N.I Act.

8. It is also relevant to mention here that as per Section 118 N.1. Act a cheque shall be deemed to be drawri on the date which is mentioned in the cheque even if same may post dated.

9. In the present case, a cheque dated 02:06.2023 of erstwhile Allahabad Bank was presented to the Indian Bank on 21.08.2023, and the same was returned on 25.08.2023 with the endorsement "wrongly delivered not drawn on us". Therefore, the cheque in question was invalid on the date of presentation before the Indian Bank.

12. This Court is also of the view that the above analogy will also be applicable to the cheques of all banks which had merged with other banks.”

6. Thus, in Archana Singh Gautham supra, it was held that when an invalid cheque is presented before the bank and dishonoured, no liability arises under Section 138 of ‘the N.I.Act.,’ since the cheque itself is invalid. Pursuant to the merger of the State Bank of Hyderabad with the State Bank of India, cheques of the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad ceased to be valid after 31.03.2018. Further, Section 118(b) of ‘the N.I.Act.,’ provides that a cheque shall be deemed to have been drawn on the date mentioned therein,