##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5843 OF 2025

DATE: 29-12-2025

Between:

M/s. JM Financial Services Limited

… Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Telangana at

Hyderabad and another

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4

seeking to quash the proceedings against it in S.T.C.(N.I.).No.41 of

2023 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Kukatpally, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’).

2. Heard Sri J. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

2 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.5843 of 2025

3. In spite of service of notice, none appears for respondent

No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner herein is accused No.4; that it has not issued any

cheque in favour of respondent No.2-complainant; that even

according to the contents of the complaint, no allegations are

levelled against the petitioner herein and thus, the offence under

Section 138 of N.I. Act does not attract against the petitioner

herein. He further submitted that the alleged cheques are

purported to have been signed by accused Nos.2 and 3 and that

when the petitioner herein has not issued any cheque, roping the

petitioner into the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not

justified. He further submitted that the allegations in the complaint

do not attract the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against

the petitioner herein and therefore, continuation of proceedings

against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. He further

submitted that there is no co-relation between the seven cheques

that are alleged to have been issued and that it is not clear as to

which cheque is dishonoured. The legal notices are alleged to

have been issued on 12.10.2022 and 07.11.2022, but the

complaint is filed on 14.12.2022 and thus, on the ground of

3 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.5843 of 2025

limitation also, the complaint fails. He, therefore, prayed to quash

the proceedings in the present S.T.C.(N.I.).No.41 of 2023 against

the petitioner herein. Learned counsel, in support of his

submissions, has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable

Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. and another, 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1359

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

accused No.1-Company is affiliated to the petitioner/accused

No.4-Company and accused No.2 is the Proprietor of accused

No.1-Company. Since the cheques issued by accused No.2 are

dishonoured, the present complaint is filed against accused Nos.1

to 4. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. It is alleged that accused No.2 is the authorised person to

the petitioner/accused No.4-Company and also a registered Stock

Broker under Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI). It is further

alleged that accused No.1-Company is affiliated to accused No.4-

Company and that generated a trust that investment with accused

No.1-Company was a secured investment. It is further alleged that

accused No.3 has introduced himself as a Manager to the clients,

4 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.5843 of 2025

whoever approaches the accused No.1-Company, and used to sign

the bonds as authorized signatory and issue cheques of accused

No.1-Company signed by accused No.2. It is alleged that the

accused have persuaded the complainant to believe that accused

No.1-Company is affiliated with petitioner/accused No.4-Company,

but for this there are no other allegations against the petitioner

herein. The cheques are alleged to have been issued by accused

No.2. The contents of the complaint point out that the cheques are

signed by accused No.2 for accused No.1-Company. The only

allegation against the petitioner is