THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4588 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in STC.NI.No.5 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

2. The complainant-2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that A.1 and A.2 are the mother and daughter, approached him for a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to meet their financial commitments and also assured that they will return the said amount within six months. A.1 and A.2 also executed a promissory note and even after six months, they have not repaid the amount. On persistent requests and demands of the 2nd respondent, A.1 issued cheque on her behalf and also on behalf of petitioner for the said amount. It is further stated that when the cheque was deposited in the Bank, it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Account closed’. As such, the complainant filed complaint against A.1 and A.2. The said complaint was taken cognizance by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Mettu Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Though notice is received by the 2^nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-A.2 is that petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque and she is no way concerned with the cheque issued by A.1, that she is also not signatory to the alleged promissory note executed by A.1 and without there being any liability, the petitioner herein is made as accused. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alka Khandu Avhad V Amar Syamprasad Mishra and another, (2021) 4 SCC 675 and Bijoy Kumar Moni V Paresh Manna and another, 2024 SCC online SC 3833. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A.2.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and the material placed on record, it is seen that A.1 and A.2 are the mother and daughter and they approached the 2^nd respondent for advancing the loan amount of Rs.20 Lakhs. The petitioner herein is neither the signatory to the alleged promissory note nor signatory to Ex.P.1-cheque. It is pertinent to note the

observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alka Khandu Avhad’s case wherein it is observed as under :

“8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length, considered material on record and also considered the averments and allegations in the complaint. It emerges from the record that the dishonoured cheque was issued by original Accused 1 husband of the appellant. It was drawn from the bank account of original Accused 1. The dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1. Therefore, the dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1 and it was drawn on the bank account of original Accused 1. The appellant herein-original Accused 2 is neither the signatory to the cheque nor the dishonoured cheque was drawn from her bank account. That the account in question was not a joint account. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is required to be considered whether the appellant herein-original Accused 2 can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act?

9. On a fair reading of Section 138 of the NI Act, before a person can be prosecuted, the following conditions are required to be satisfied:

9.1. That the cheque is drawn by a person and on an account maintained by him with a banker.

9.2. For the payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

9.3. The said cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that accou