IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16024 of 2025 Date: 16.12.2025 Between:

Gopala Srihitha.

...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.NI.No.2237 of 2024, on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “ the Act, 1881”).

2. Heard Mr. M.S.Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for 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 Section 138 of the Act, 1881 stating that the petitioner and her husband approached him for a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and he has given a hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to them on 22.12.2023, and they issued two post-dated cheques of Rs.10 lakhs each. When the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.000370 dated 29.01.2024 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank Kokapet Branch, it was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” on 30.01.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued legal notice to the petitioner on 19.02.2024 through RPAD and the same was received by the petitioner on 21.02.2024. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of 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 submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the ingredients of the Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, 1881 are not applicable.

4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank, Kokapet on 24.08.2024, wherein she specifically stated that she missed the cheque book pertaining to the account bearing No.722501500031 and requested the bank to close the account and stop all the cheques. He also submitted that the petitioner has not issued the subject cheque in favour of respondent No.2 and there is no legally enforceable debt between them. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of the law.

4.2. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, S.l.p.No.8059 of 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.913 of 2009.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint to the police about loss of her two cheque books; she submitted a representation to the Bank that she missed her two cheque books and requested to stop all the cheques pertaining to the account bearing No.722501500031, whether there is any privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.2 or not and whether the subject cheque issued is about legally enforceable debt or not, are disputed questions of facts and the same has to be adjudicated before the trial Court after full-fledged trial and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions for the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 in his complaint specifically made an averment that he gave an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner and her husband towards hand loan, in cash, and the petitioner had issued two post-

dated cheques. When the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.000370