THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in STC NI No.41 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’).

2. Heard Mr. G. Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not due to pay any legally enforceable debt to the de facto complainant herein and the complainant himself does not know as to the actual amount given as alleged debt and has stated varied amounts at different places thus, the complaint itself is false. He has further submitted that the petitioner has taken loan of Rs.3,00,000/- only and has repaid the same and that the de facto complainant has obtained three cheques from him, but has not returned the same on his repayment and has put them to misuse by filing this case. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is alleged that the petitioner herein has taken a debt of Rs.30.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant and agreed to pay the same with interest. Thereafter, the petitioner did not repay the amount and dragging the matter and on repeated requests of the de facto complainant, the petitioner issued two cheques for Rs.16.00 lakhs each. When the cheques were presented in the Bank, they were returned for the reason that ‘Payment stopped by the drawer’ and the same was intimated to the petitioner. Thereafter, on repeated requests made by the de facto complainant, the petitioner issued another cheque bearing No.286123 for Rs.25.00 lakhs and assured to transfer an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the account of the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant presented the said cheque in the Bank, the same was also dishonoured with the endorsement ‘Kindly contact Drawer, Drawee bank and please present again’ and hence, he intimated the same to the petitioner. Then, the petitioner sought time for one week to deposit the same and he transferred Rs.5.00 lakhs to the account of the de facto complainant. As per the request of the petitioner, he has waited for one week and presented the cheque again, but it was returned for the reason ‘payment stopped by the drawer.’ With the said set of allegations a legal notice was issued and finally case under Section 138 of NI Act was filed. The allegations in the complaint prima facie point out the case under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he has taken only Rs.3.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant and subsequently, with interest he has paid Rs.5.00 lakhs, but still the de facto complainant has misused the cheques. The truth in the allegations made by the petitioner and the reason for issuing all the three cheques, would be culled out only after a full-fledged trial and the said issues are triable, and hence, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. The petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 17, 2025 KTL