IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16090 of 2025 Date: 08.12.2025 Between:

Sri P.V.Chary ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another ...Respondents

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in STC NI No.7 of 2023, on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’).

2. Heard Mr.M.P.K.Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present criminal petition are briefly stated that Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act. Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner had issued cheques bearing Nos.431952 and 431953 dated 25.09.2022 for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. When these cheques were presented to the bank, they were returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds.” Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued a statutory notice, and after receiving a reply from the petitioner, he filed the present complaint. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of Respondent No.2, took cognizance and issued summons.

Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had issued the cheques only for collateral purposes and that there is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and Respondent No.2. Hence, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act are not attracted. He further submitted that Respondent No.2 misused the cheques, which were admittedly issued for collateral purposes, and wrongfully initiated proceedings against the petitioner. It is also contended that Respondent No.2 has not filed the work order dated 19.02.2020 executed between the petitioner and Respondent No.2. In the absence of this document, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that Respondent No.2, after following the statutory procedure prescribed under the Act, filed a private complaint before the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance and issued summons.

6. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed cheques were not issued towards any legally enforceable debt, that there was no legally enforceable liability between the petitioner and Respondent No.2, that the cheques were issued only for collateral purposes, and that Respondent No. 2 misused the said cheques to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is concerned, these grounds clearly involve disputed questions of fact. Such issues are required to be adjudicated by the trial court after a full-fledged trial.

7. With regard to the non-filing of the document dated 19.02.2020 by Respondent No.2 before the trial court, the contention that the Magistrate took cognizance in the absence of the said document is also a matter to be examined and decided by the trial court during the course of trial. The Respondent No.2 in the document dated 19.02.2020 specifically submitted that he is not going to file any cases against the petitioner. In spite of the same,