In proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused admits to issuing a cheque in the name of the complainant, summoning a third party to whom the cheque was allegedly handed over is unnecessary and serves no legal purpose.

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Crl.R.P.No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Khammam, confirming the order dated 06.10.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.592 of 2022 in CC No.601 of 2015 by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

2. Heard Sri Narsaiah Golla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in CC No.601 of 2015 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’), the petitioner herein, who is accused, has filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No.595 of 2022 to summon a witness, which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 06.10.2022. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred a revision vide Crl.R.P. No.36 of 2022 before the Sessions Judge at Khammam, and the reviosnal court has dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 28.08.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 28.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2-complainant has no sufficient means and is not having any capacity to lend the loan to the petitioner and that both the courts below without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and that unless the witness is summoned, it is difficult for the petitioner to prove his case and hence, prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 is no way concerned with the alleged witness and that the petitioner has never made any attempts to adduce evidence for the past several years, but has filed the petition for summoning the witness at the fag end of the trial, which is nothing but dragging the matter and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The record discloses that the petitioner herein is accused in CC No.601 of 2015 for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and he filed a petition before the trial court under Section 144 of the NI Act to summon one P. Sri Sri, to whom he contends to have given the cheques. The respondent No.2- complainant was examined as PW.1 and during the course of cross-examination, it was elicited that the petitioner gave cheque to one Sri Sri and that the complainant has obtained it from the said person and filed a false case against him. The contention of the petitioner is that he has given the cheuqe in the name of the complainant, but has handed over to Sri Sri. The petitioner herein wants to summon the said Sri Sri to prove that the cheque is given to Sri Sri, but not to the complainant. That means, the petitioner admits his signature on the cheque and issuance of the cheque to said P.Sri Sri. His further contention is that he has given two cheques to Sri Sri and one cheque is given in the name of the complainant, the same was handed over to Sri Sri and the complainant has utilized the same for filing the present complainant. Even if his contention is believed to be true, no person would hand over the cheque to a third party, which is issued in the name of another person. Even if the said contention is assumed to be true, once the petitioner admits that he has issued the cheque in the name of the complainant, there is no new point to be elicited by summoning the witness. Th