IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:16.03.2026 Between:

Vikas Agencies, Thorrur, Rep. by its Proprietor Santhoshimatha …Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and another … Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in STC No.4 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, registered for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) and Section 420 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Janardhan Goud Sunkari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The complainant is the Ex-husband of one Santhoshimatha, Proprietor of the petitioner-accused Company. The case of the complainant is that in the year 2018, the accused obtained an amount of Rs.96.00 lakhs as loan from the complainant for construction of house and promised to pay interest at 24% per annum and in discharge of the said debt, a cheque bearing No.000049 dated 12.01.2023 has been given by the accused. When the cheque was presented in the Bank by the complainant, it was returned on 13.01.2023 due to the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’, along with memo dated 13.01.2023. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a statutory notice on 27.01.2023 to the accused, but the same was returned. Thus, the case under Section 138 of the NI Act has been filed against the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has submitted that the petitioner has never taken any such loan from the complainant and that their relationship was existing in 2018 and that the house was built by both of them. He further submitted that even according to the contents of the complaint, the amount of Rs.96.00 lakh is alleged to be given in 2018, but the cheque is alleged to be given in 2023, which discloses that it was a time barred debt as on the date of issuance of cheque. The legal notice is alleged to be issued on 27.01.2023 and that the petitioner has never received the said notice and that it is falsely alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has managed the postal authorities and has not made the payment. He further submitted that the petitioner and the complainant are wife and husband and that mutual consent divorce was granted to both the parties vide orders dated 23.12.2020 in FCOP No.1215 of 2020 and both of them have decided to settle the issues amicably and it was also agreed upon that they shall not have any claim against each other, but still the present case is filed to wreck vengeance against the petitioner herein.

4.1. He further argued that the complainant has instituted a civil suit vide O.S. No.228 of 2021 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, for recovery of an amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs and even in the said civil suit, there is no mention with regard to the alleged borrowing of money to an extent of Rs.96.00 lakhs. Thus, it is clear that he is coming with inconsistent pleas just to harass the petitioner herein. He further argued that as per the memorandum of understanding, the complainant has transferred the land admeasuring Ac.0.13 gts., in Sy. No.12/A/13 situated at Thorrur in favour of his daughter and subsequent to obtaining the mutual consent divorce, the complainant has again filed a civil suit vide O.S.

No.129 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, seeking cancelation of the said registered deed which was executed in favour of their daughter Vinaya. Thus, the conduct of the complainant is very unfair and just to harass the petitioner herein, the present complaint has been filed seeking redressal over an alleged debt, which is time barred. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitione