IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3625 OF 2025 DATE: 09.04.2026 BETWEEN:

Rahemath Nasreen …..Petitioner And The State of Telangana and another …..Respondents : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.NI.No.166 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and the accused were well acquainted, and on 20.10.2020, the accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.12,50,000/- from the complainant, promising to repay within six months. Upon repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque dated 29.06.2021 bearing No.566011 drawn on Syndicate Bank towards repayment of the said amount. The complainant presented the cheque on 27.09.2021 through Bank of Baroda, Bowenpally, but it was returned on 05.10.2021 with the endorsement “stale cheque.” Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice dated 22.10.2021, which was received by the accused, who replied denying liability. As the accused failed to pay the amount within the statutory period, the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I.Act’) and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard Sri Akella Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Sri Palreddy Jithender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the cheque in question was returned with the endorsement “stale cheque,” which does not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act. He further submitted that the cheque was presented beyond the validity period of three months, and therefore no legally enforceable liability arises. He contended that there was no existing debt and the complainant is a stranger, and the proceedings are an abuse of process of law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Virender Singh Dhanta vs. Khajan Singh1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. vs. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 609, to contend that prosecution based on a stale cheque is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and was presented within the prescribed period of three months from the date of issuance and that the endorsement “stale cheque” was wrongly made by the bank, allegedly at the instance of accused, and the cheque was in fact valid at the time of presentation. He further submitted that all statutory requirements under the N.I. Act have been

1 Crl.R.P.No.367 of 2024 dated 21.10.2024

duly complied with and that the accused, having participated in the trial for a considerable period, cannot seek to quash the proceedings at a belated stage. He contended that the defence raised is a matter for trial and the petition is filed only to delay the proceedings, and therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and a perusal of the material available on record, this Court observes that the principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque in question was returned with the endorsement “stale cheque”, and therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiabl