IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16011 of 2025

Date: 16.12.2025

Between:

Gopala Mahender.

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Represented by its Public Prosecutor

High Court for the State of Telangana,

At Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in CC.NI.No.2352 of 2024, on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, registered for the offences punishable under Section 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “ the Act, 1881”).

2. Heard Mr. M.S.Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offence under

Section 138 of the Act, 1881, are not attracted. He further submitted that the alleged cheque was returned by the bank with an endorsement as “drawer’s signature differs” and the above said reason do not attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. He further submitted that the petitioner has not received any legal notice issued by respondent No.2, as the petitioner is residing in different address and the signature on the cheque does not belongs to him. Respondent No.2 without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act i.e., Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sending legal notice to the correct address, filed in the present complaint. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel relying upon the principle laid down in Vinod Tanna Vs. Zaheer Siddiqui and Others1 .

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the grounds which are raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact, the same has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. The petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings basing on the grounds raised in the present criminal petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

1 2001 (2) ALD (CRI) 124

record, it reveals that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C, for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. The complaint further reveals that respondent No.2 issued statutory notice on 19.02.2024 and filed postal receipt and postal acknowledgment with track report along the complaint copy. Learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of respondent No.2, took cognizance and issued summons. Respondent No.2 in the complaint specifically alleged that the petitioner took a hand loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and issued two (02) cheques for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each towards repayment on one of which was presented and returned by the bank with an endorsement “drawer’s signature differs” and according to respondent No.2, the cheques issued were legally enforceable but deliberately dishonored.

7. When a cheque is dishonoured under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, 1881, arises in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The mere fact that the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “signature differs” does not, by itself, negate this presumption; as such dishonor squarely falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Act, 1881. The presumption under Section 139 continues to operate unless reb