HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVASRAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16003 of 2025 Date 04.12.2025 Between:

Gopala Srihitha.

Petitioner/Sole accused AND The State of Telangana and another.

Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in STC.NI.No.172 of 2025, on the file of learned Additinal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

2. Heard Mr. Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case arising in the present criminal petition are that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Wherein he stated that he gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards hand loan to the husband of the petitioner. When he demanded for repayment of the said amount, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.00039 dated 03.05.2025 for the said amount, drawn on ICICI Bank Kokapet Branch and the said cheque was presented in the said bank and the same was returned on 05.05.2025 with a memo “Account Closed”. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued statutory notice to the petitioner as well as the husband of the petitioner on 16.05.2025. The petitioner and her husband have issued reply to the notice dated 02.06.2025. Thereafter complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the respondent No.1, took cognizance. Accordingly, the matter is coming up for trial. Hence, the present criminal petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the ingredients of Sections 138 and 139 of the Act are not attracted.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner submitted representation to the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank, Kokapet on 24.08.2024 wherein the petitioner specifically stated that she missed the cheque books pertaining to the account bearing No.722501500031 and requested the bank to close the said account and stop all the cheques. He further submitted that the petitioner has not issued the above said cheque in favour of respondent No.2 and the cheque was presented by the respondent No.2 was returned with an endorsement that “Account Closed”.

4.2. He further submitted that petitioner in her reply to the legal notice specifically stated that neither the cheque was issued in favour of respondent No.2 nor she has received any amount from the respondent No.2. Inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clearly an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.913 of 2009, Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, S.l.p.No.8059 of 2007

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not lodged any compliant to the Police about loss of her two cheque books; she submitted representation to the Bank to close the account and stop all the cheques pertaining to the account bearing No.722501500031. In the reply notice also, the petitioner has not demanded the respondent No.2 to return the cheque bearing No.000399 on 03.05.2025. He further submitted that even according to the averments made in the complaint, the respondent No.2 transferred the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of RTGS to the account of the husband of the petitioner. Inspite of repayment of the said amount, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.00039