THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3419 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in STC.NI.No.6651 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a private complaint on 22.02.2023 before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.21,00,000/- as hand loans and had executed two promissory notes for Rs.30,00,000/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner had issued two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- each, which were dishonoured with the endorsement “Exceeds Arrangement”. The complainant claimed to have issued a statutory notice and, upon receiving a reply denying liability, filed the complaint under Sections

138 and 141 of the NI Act.

3. Heard Smt. Radha Rani Devaneni, learned counsel representing Smt. Pulipati Vandana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri. D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri Syed Khamruddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the allegations were false and did not disclose any offence under the NI Act and that the complaint was time-barred, vague, inconsistent, and based on a legally unenforceable debt. She further submitted that part payments were not endorsed on the cheques, the statutory notice lacked material particulars, and the alleged cash loan violated the Income Tax Act. She contended that the cognizance order lacked reasons and that continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnam Raju Finances, Hyderabad v. Abida Sultana and another, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 546 (AP) , Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa 2 , and Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy

2 AIR 2019 SC 1983

Development Agency Limited, (2016) 10 SCC 458, Therefore, she prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and was attempting to misuse Section 482 Cr.P.C. to evade repayment of a clearly admitted and legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the petitioner had taken a hand loan of Rs.30,00,000/- in the year 2016, acknowledged the liability by issuing two promissory notes and two cheques for Rs.15,00,000/- each, and thereafter defaulted on both principal and agreed interest. He contended that the cheques were dishonoured with the endorsements “Exceeds Arrangement” and “Funds Insufficient”, and a statutory notice was duly issued within time. He further submitted that the complaint was filed within the limitation period, the pleas of the petitioner were false, vague and intended to mislead the Court, and that the allegations in the complaint constituted a clear prima facie offence under Section 138 NI Act. He emphasized that the

petitioner had been evading trial, had not appeared before the Magistrate, and was seeking to derail the proceedings. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna 4, and Biten P. Dalal v. Bratindranatha Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the primary contention of the petitioner that the promissory note was executed in the year 2016 and the complaint was filed in the year 2022, thereby rendering the alleged debt tim