##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

CRIMINAL PETITIONS No. 5484, 5485, 5486 AND 5487 OF 2025

24.03.2026

Between:

Gottimukkala Madhavi ….. Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad & another

….. Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

These four Criminal Petitions are filed by petitioner

– accused to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising out of four different cheques for Rs.11,50,000/-, Rs.8,75,000/-m, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs.7,65,000/- in C.C.N.I.No. 35, 36, 37 and 38 of 2025 respectively on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Secunderabad.

2. The case of the complainant – Respondent No.2 is that herself and petitioner – accused ran an NGO namely Shreelikhi Women Welfare Association for some time and

2

subsequently, due to Corona pandemic, she expressed her inability to participate in the joint works and decided to retire. Petitioner agreed to settle the accounts and after settlement, she requested Respondent No.2 that amount indebted to her would be adjusted later and accordingly, on 01.06.2020, she executed four promissory notes for Rs.7,65,000/-, Rs.10 lacs, Rs.8.75 lacs and Rs.11.50 lacs, totalling Rs.37,90,000/- in favour of Respondent No.2. However, petitioner failed to return the amounts and finally, in the fourth week of March, 2023, she approached Respondent No.2 and issued four cheques bearing No. 000027 for Rs.8,75,000/-, dated 01.04.2023, No. 000028 dated 0304.2023 for Rs.11.50 lacs, No. 000030, dated 28.03.2023 for Rs.10 lacs and Cheque No. 000029, dated 28.03.2023 for Rs.7,65,000/- all drawn on Bank of Baroda,

Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam

2.1. It is stated, all the four cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Payment Stopped by the Drawer’ and the same was intimated to Respondent No.2; subsequently, at request of petitioner, cheques were again presented on 31.03.2023 but the same were returned with the same endorsement. Respondent No.2 got issued legal notice on

3

12.04.2023, however, the said notice was returned as there is no such addressee. Having waited till expiry of grace period,

Respondent No.2 filed the above complaints.

3. Now, petitioner seeks to quash the said cases on the ground that no offence is made out against her for the offence punishable under Section 138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner further humbly submits that she is a post graduate and is also secretary to "Sri LIKI WOMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION" and Respondent No.2 and her

husband were nowhere connected to the said Association.

3.1. Petitioner further states that to meet business and family expenses, she borrowed Rs.22,75,000/- (Twenty Two lakhs Seventy Five Thousands Rupees only) from Respondent No.2 and her husband on different dates in 2017 and handed over the signed blank promissory notes and unfilled signed cheques to respondent No.2. She regularly paid interest @ Rs.2/- and also repaid a part of principal amount by way of cash. When she demanded respondent No.2 to issue receipt or to endorse on the back side of the promissory note, they refused to do so. Moreover, Respondent No.2 and her husband

4

demanded heavy rate of interest and harassed her to repay the

same as per their demands.

3.2. It is stated, petitioner repaid Rs.60 lakhs to Respondent No.2 and her husband. A sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Eighteen lakhs rupees only) was deposited in the ATM machine to the bank account of the respondent No.2 and her husband, the entries also reflect in the bank statements of respondent No.2 and her husband. Thus, petitioner totally paid Rs.1,20,00,000/- to respondent No.2 and her husband. However, cheques and promissory notes were not returned to petitioner and still they are demanding to pay the principal

amount.

3.3. Respondent No.2 and her husband started approaching political leaders and police by making false al