THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.11261 OF 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.T.C.N.I. No.36 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial, registered for the offence under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’).

02. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 and Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-

complainant is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.10-01 guntas in Survey Nos.210, 211, 211/1, 212, 213/1, and 214, and his friend Mohammad Masood, S/o Abdul, R/o Jagtial, is also the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.10-01 guntas in Survey Nos.210, 211/2, 212, and 213, situated at Kondapur Village, Medipally Mandal. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused approached the respondent No.2 with a proposal to purchase the said lands, and an agreement dated 08.07.2020 was executed in writing. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner-accused paid Rs.52,60,000/-, with the balance consideration to be paid within two months for registration of the sale deed. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 received multiple payments from the petitioner-accused. However, despite repeated demands, the petitioner-accused failed to clear the remaining amount. In the first week of February 2021, respondent No.2 demanded a refund, upon which the petitioner- accused issued a cheque dated 22.03.2021 for Rs.4,50,000/-. When presented, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. A legal notice dated 17.04.2021 was issued by the respondent No.2, which was returned unclaimed as the petitioner-accused was absent. Hence, the present complaint.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the respondent No.2 suppressed the fact that the petitioner- accused had paid the entire sale consideration to the respondent No.2 and his friend on 20.03.2021, and, upon receipt thereof, both executed registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner-

accused. It is contended that the complaint is not maintainable as it was filed against Sri Rajanna Hospital, represented by Dr. Bathula Ramaiah, though the sale transaction was with Dr. Bathula Ramaiah in his personal capacity and not with Sri Rajanna Hospital. It is further submitted that no statutory legal notice was served upon the petitioner-accused, and in the absence of such notice as required under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law. It is also urged that since respondent No.2 and his friend had already executed registered sale deeds on 20.03.2021, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the petitioner-accused. Hence, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 1050 , wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it was held that:

“(4). Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that his client’s conviction is liable to be et aside because before filing complaint, the respondent did not serve upon his notice as per the requirement of clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act. He submitted that service of notice on the appellant’s wife

cannot be treated as compliance of the mandate of law. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 did not dispute that the notice issued by his client was, in fact, served upon the appellant’s wife but argued that this should be treated as sufficient compliance of the requirement of giving notice of demand.

(5). Section 138 deals with the dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts of the perso