Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 29322
TH€ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Kumram Srinivas Chari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No: 4909 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri K. VENUMADHAV
For the Respondents: Sri S. GANESH, Sri SUNIL DESHPANDE
A cheque issued after the limitation period for debt recovery is not enforceable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - This petition seeks to quash a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act due to the cheque being issued for a time-barred debt. (Paras 3, 10, 11)
(B) The court held that a cheque cannot be considered as issued for a legally enforceable debt if it is presented after the expiry of the limitation period. The court emphasized that the issuance of a cheque for a time-barred debt cannot attract liability under Section 138. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner took a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 29.07.2017 but issued a cheque dated 28.12.2020, which was returned due to insufficient funds and payment stopped.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the debt was barred by limitation and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the cheque issued was for a legally enforceable debt given the time elapsed since the loan was taken.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a cheque issued after the limitation period for debt recovery is not enforceable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Result: Criminal petition allowed.
ORDER:
This criurinal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the complaint ln S.T.C.No.l959 of 2021 on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampatly, Hyderabad.
2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l - State.Perused the record.
3.The brief fhcts of the case arc that respondent No.2 herein has given a hand loan ol-Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner/accused herein on 29.07.201'7, upon which the petitioner has promised to repay the said amount with simple interest of @ 2%. It is stated that even after a lapse of one year the petitioner/accused did not repay the said amount. On the persistent rcquests for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque dated 28.12.2020 in fhvour of the 2"'r responclent for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and whe n the said cheque was presented before the Bank on 02.01.2021, it was returnecl with an endorsement of "lnsufficient Funds" and on instructions of the petitioner, 2"d respondent had furlher lepresented the said cheque on 15.01.2021 But, the said cheque was again returned with an endorsement "paynrent stopped". Therefore, On 20.01.2021, rcspondent .No.2 issued legal notice to the petitioner. Even though the same was received, the petitioner did not repay the said amount, as such, 2"d respondent has filed the complaint under Sections 138 and l4l of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .
4.It is the contention of the learned counsel lbr ttre petitioner that petitioner lras not at all issued the said cheque to the2nd respondent at any point of time and that the respondent No.2 out of acquaintance might have taken away the said cheque and by folging the signatures of the petitioner with a date 28.12.2020 and writing a surn of Rs. 10,00,000/- on it might have prr:sented the said cheque lo his account. Even by naked eye, the signatures on the chequc are cornpared to signatures on the vakalat. it can be found that thc said signatures are forged. It is the further contentior.r of thc lcamcd courrscl fbr the petitionel that as per the (:ontents of the complaint, thc alleged amount was paid to the peritioner on 29.07.2011 and the datc olcheque is issued on28.12.2020, rvhich was issued after a period of 3 years 3 months. Hence, it is a time barred debt and 1lrere cannot be any recovery for a time barred debt. Therefiore, prayed to quash the petition.
5. Inspite of fiting vakalat on behalf of the 2nd respondent, none has appeared fbr him and therefore, the matter was adjourned only for hearing the 2'd respondent on 02.09.2022 and 28.06.2023. Even torJay, when the rnatter is catled, there is no representation on behalf of the 2'd respondent. Therefore, the arguments of the 2n'r respondent are treated as "nil".
6. On perusal. of the contents of the complaint, it is evident that the petitioner has taken hand loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from respondent No.2 on 29.07.2017 and that the petitioner has issued cheque dated 28.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.10.00,000/-. The contents of the complaint also reveals that the petitioner promised to repay the said loan with interest @ 2% on the loan amount of Rs. 10.00,000/-. If at all the petitioner has issued the cheque, he ought to havc issued the same for Rs.10,00,000/-, after adding interest to the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for a period of 3 years 3 months.
7 Admittedly, the date of advancement of loan was 29.07 .2017 and the alleged cheque which was issued on 28.12..2020.If there is any legally enforceable debt, in discharge of tl.re legall y enforceable debt, a cheque has been issued within the prcscribed timc and therc cannot be any issuance of cheque for a time barred cheque.
8.Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Padala Veera Venkata Saltanarayana Reddy v. Stote of Antlhra Pradesh and others,2019 (1) ALD (Crl) 496 (AP) wherein their Lor.dships have held that there should be a legally enforceable
