APHC010716512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10492/2022 Between:

1. M/S.SADHANA CONSTRUCTIONS, S REPTD., BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PABBATIREDDY NARISIREDDY, S/O SATTIREDDY, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, 17-42/1, SRINAGAR COLONY, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD.

2. PABBATIREDDY NARISIREDDY, S/O SATTIREDDY, HINDU, AGED

52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 3-6-125, PLOT NO. 204, STREET NO. 18, SAMRAJYALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, BESIDES MADINA PLIC SCHOOL, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD.

3. PABBATIREDDY ANITA, W/O NARISIREDDY, HINDU, 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 3-6-125, PLOT NO. 204, STREET NO. 18, SAMRAJYALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, BESIDES MADINA PUBLIC SCHOOL, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPTD., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COUIT OF AP., AMARAVATI.

2. AMMIREDDY MURALIDHARREDDY, S/O LATE MATTAREDDY, HINDU, 417.-YEARS, RESIDENT OF 31-60-3/37, GREENLANDS COLONY, VUDA PHASE-IV, KURMANNAPALEM, VIZAG ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2. V V SATISH The Court made the following:

ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.92 of 2022 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, for the offence under Sections 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881²

2. Heard Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there is no contractual obligation between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 and the signature on the subject cheque is a rank forgery. Learned counsel would further submit that the bank account of A.1-Firm was closed as it was declared as NPA, as such, the question of issuance of the subject cheque does not arise. It is further submitted that the filing of the present complaint basing on the forged negotiable instrument for unlawful gain, itself is a sheer abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would finally pray for quashment of the case against the Petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that after issuance of the cheque, it is the duty of the drawer of the said cheque to maintain the said account and make arrangements for honour of the cheque and if he fails to maintain that account and sufficient funds with the Bank to honour the

for short „Cr.P.C‟

for short „the Act‟

cheque, it amounts of the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that, once the cheque was issued by the drawer, it shall be presumed that the same has been issued by the drawer for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It is submitted that the contentions raised by the Petitioners have to be established during trial and they cannot be considered while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Point for determination:

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.92 of 2022 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka?

Determination by the Court:

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii)