APHC010442442021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2025:APHC:11609 AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6400/2021 Between:

Chillara Venkatesh, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Padarthi Ramakrishna and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. PETA GNANA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent No.1 is the de- facto complainant. The respondent No.1 had lodged a private complaint in the month of April, 2019 alleging that the petitioner/accused and the de-facto complainant are friends and upon the words of the petitioner, the de-facto complainant invested an amount of Rs.44,50,000/- in the petitioner’s company. Thereafter, due to result of some series of events and misunderstanding between the parties, the de-facto complainant decided to withdraw the amount he invested in the petitioner’s company. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner had returned an amount of Rs.24,50,000/-, to the de- facto complainant and further issued a cheque bearing No.059139, dated 27.01.2018, drawn at Axis Bank, Banjara Hiss, Hyderabad in favour of the de- facto complainant for withdrawal of the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. When the de-facto complainant presented the said cheque through his Banker i.e., Syndicate Bank, Amaravathi on 22.02.2019, the said cheque was dishonored and returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” and accordingly a return memo to that effect was also received by the de-facto complainant.

3. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant had issued a registered legal notice dated 14.03.2019 to the petitioner calling him to pay the due amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice. Pursuant to which, the petitioner issued a reply notice date 18.03.2019. Alleging the same, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint vide C.C.No.147 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Satenapalli was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the same is being challenged in the present Criminal Petition.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that after part-payment of Rs.24,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.059139 for on amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on a condition that the cheque will be returned un-presented on payment of the said due amount by the petitioner and to that effect the petitioner after the payment of Rs.24,50,000/- on 17.07.2018, had also paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.12.2018, Rs,3,00,000/- on 16.12.2019 to the de-facto complainant and the same were also received by him. Therefore, the petitioner had paid a total amount of Rs.32,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant. It is further represented that as per the terms and conditions of the written agreement dated 28.03.2018, if the de-facto complainant opts to back out or is unable to pay the agreed part of the investment amount, then the borrower/petitioner is liable to return back only 75% of the invested amount of Rs.44,50,000/-, which in total amounts to Rs.33,37,500/- and as the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.32,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant, the proceedings under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act, 1881, against the petitioner are mere abuse of law.

Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for responden