ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.NI.No.644 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr.T.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Investment/Development cum Memorandum of Understanding, dated 21.02.2022, and the petitioner is not a signatory to the said Memorandum of Understanding. The alleged cheque was issued in the name of M/s Amacon Developers (herein after referred to as ‘firm’), whereas respondent No.2 filed the complaint in his individual capacity. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). He further submitted that the alleged cheque was issued as security and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Hence, the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are not attracted against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint invoking the provisions of Section 190(1)(a) and Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act against the petitioner.

5. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that the petitioner is the proprietor of the firm, and respondent No.2 and the firm entered into an Agreement of Investment/Development cum Memorandum of Understanding on 21.02.2022. It is alleged that the petitioner, being the proprietor of the firm, issued cheque bearing No.000104, dated 19.03.2023 for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.2. The said cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a statutory legal notice dated 06.07.2023. The petitioner did not issue any reply to the said notice. Subsequently, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the NI Act respondent No.2 filed complaint and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence.

6. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged cheque was issued only for the purpose of security in connection with the Agreement of Investment/ Development cum Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2022 and not towards any legally enforceable debt is concerned, the said contention involves a disputed question of fact. Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or as security has to be adjudicated by the trial Court. With regard to the further contention that the cheque was issued in the name of the firm and not in the petitioner’s individual capacity, and the petitioner is not a signatory to the agreement, it is noted that the petitioner does not dispute being the sole proprietor of the said firm. These are disputed questions of facts and the petitioner is entitled to raise all these grounds before the trial Court and the grounds urged by the petitioner can be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial.

7. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter before the trial Court is at the stage of summons.

8. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a woman and having regard to he