THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.738 of 2023

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The facts of the case are that the 2^nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner herein acquainted him through his brother and has money transaction as such the petitioner borrowed three lakh from him on 02.03.2017 at the residence of the complainant in the presence of one Sudhakar by way of cash for his family necessities and promised to repay within one year with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and executed a promissory note and issued an empty cheque bearing number 262068 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, Saroornagar Branch. After completion of one year, the complainant demanded for repayment of said amount and the petitioner postponed the same and finally on 01.07.2018, the complainant along with his friend K. Subhash Kumar approached the accused and demanded to repay the amount but again the accused requested the complainant to wait until 08.07.2018, and present the given empty signed cheque for Rs.3,50,000/- and assured the complainant that the cheque will be honoured on presentation, but the same was returned with an endorsement “Account Closed”. When the same was informed to the petitioner, the petitioner gave false and evasive answers as such he issued notice on 31.08.2018 through registered post and the same was received by the petitioner on 08.09.2018 and the statutory period ended on 23.09.2018 and the petitioner has not repaid the amount as such the complainant filed the complaint on 22.10.2018.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner borrowed from the 2^nd respondent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and executed a promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also contended that the 2^nd respondent being a business man dealing monetary transactions and having knowledge that CTS cheques have come into existence from the year 2010 and whereas the cheque bearing No.262068 alleged to have been issued in the year 2017 by the petitioner is non-CTS cheque on the date of alleged loan transaction of Rs.3,00,000/-, and the 2^nd respondent was fully aware that the ING Vysya Bank was merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank from 01.04.2015 and the name ING Vysya Bank had changed to Kotak Mahindra Bank, and further on 15.05.2016, the whole merger process was completed, and under these circumstances, no prudent man can accept such alleged blank demand promissory note as well as non-CTS cheque drawn on ING Vysya Bank to recover his debt. The reconcile/review statement in respect of the petitioner’s bank account in ING Vysya Bank that the alleged cheque bearing No.262068 was issued in the year 2008 and not in the year 2017 as alleged by 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the alleged cheque bearing No.262068 is defect in structure and said cheque was tried to be credited to non-existing bank account of the petitioner. The defect in structure of cheque does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the allegation of executing the demand promissory note and issue of empty signed cheque by the petitioner towards discharge of legally enforceable debt is false and concocted to blackmail the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Naga Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date of issuance of cheque in 2017, the ING Vysya Bank itself is not in existence as it was merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank in 2015 itself and further submitted that there is no prima facie case ma