IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16853 of 2025 Date: 17.12.2025 Between:

Siddhanti Jitendra ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in STC.NI.No.404 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr.K.Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by making false allegations. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil in nature as they are arising out contractual disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 with respect to the payment of the amount allegedly due and payable. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent civil court and filed a suit for recovery of the alleged amount. Instead, respondent No.2 has filed the present private complaint against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is further submitted that the alleged cheques were not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint invoking the provisions of Section 223 read with Section 200 of the BNSS, 2023, after issuing the statutory notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whether the petitioner issued the cheques in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not, whether any amount is due to respondent No.2 by the petitioner or not, whether respondent No.2 is entitled to seek relief under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or not, and whether respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent civil court by filing a suit for recovery of the amount or not, are disputed questions of fact and they have to be adjudicated by the trial court after a full-fledged trial. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner in STC.NI.No.404 of 2025 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

6. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

17.12.2025 Note:

Issue cc in one week b/o.

lk