ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3304 of 2018 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. The offence alleged against him is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State and perused the record.

3. The case of respondent No.2/complainant is that the cheque for an amount of Rs.15.00Lakhs was issued by the petitioner herein towards discharge of outstanding amount. Initially, an amount of Rs.12.00Lakhs was advanced to petitioner on 18.06.2014. Aggrieved by non-payment, O.S.No.117 of 2015 was filed before the I Addl. District Judge, Warangal and the same was pending adjudication. When the proceedings were under way, it is alleged that the petitioner issued cheque for Rs.15.00Lakhs for withdrawal of the said case. However, the said cheque when presented for clearance was returned unpaid with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, for which reason, case was filed after issuing notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cheque would be invalid for the reason of amount mentioned therein being over and above the alleged loan amount of Rs.12.00Lakhs, which according to the complainant was given on 18.06.2014 and that the interest and other expenditure cannot be claimed. He further submits that the said proposition was laid down by this Court in R. Chennakesava Rao v. P. Laxmi Narsaiah 1. He relied on para No.32 of the said judgment, which reads thus:

“32. When the complainant lent or advanced amount, for payment of interest along with principal amount by the borrower, without possessing any licence to carry on such business is totally in contravention to Section 2(7) of the Act. When an identical question came up before this Court in M/s. Krishnam Raju Finances, Hyderabad v. Abida Sultana, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 546 (AP) = 2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 474 (A.P); this Court held as follows:

Since the appellant had no money lending business licence, it cannot be said that there was a legally enforceable liability of the respondent in view of Section 9(2) read with Section 2(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli. Once an

1 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 471

Act declares that a particular transaction is illegal, it cannot be made legal for the purpose of any other Act.

The sheet anchor of Section 138 of the Act is as to legally enforceable liability against the respondent, which is conspicuously absent in the case on hand. Therefore, there was no legally enforceable liability against the respondent”.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the above said judgment argued that since the amount is over and above the principal amount, the complainant cannot claim any interest over the principal amount since he does not possess any licence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant would submit that in the case, trial has commenced and coming up cross examination of PW1/complainant.

7. The proposition laid down in the judgment (supra) is not in dispute. In the present case, it is stated in the complaint that the complainant has filed a civil suit and for the withdrawal of the said suit, the cheque in question was handed over by the petitioner/accused herein. It is not the case that the compaliant had filled up any blank cheque along with interest. The complaint reflects that the cheque was given voluntarily by the accused herein. In the said circumstances, the judgment (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing to the facts of the present case. The defence plea taken by the petitioner/accused in this Criminal Petition cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P