Disputed questions of fact, such as whether a cheque was issued as a guarantee or for a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act, cannot be decided in a quashing petition and must be determined during a full-fledged trial.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.NI.No.156 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this criminal petition briefly stated are that the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant are close relatives. On 01-06-2023, the accused approached the complainant seeking Rs.10,00,000/- to purchase a house plot. The complainant agreed and advanced the amount on the same day, with interest at 12% per annum. The accused executed three promissory notes in favor of the complainant. Towards repayment, the accused issued two cheques: one bearing No.060657, dated 11-03-2025 for Rs.3,00,000/- and another bearing No.060656, dated 12-03-2025 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on Union Bank, Ghatkesar Branch. Both cheques were presented by the complainant in his HDFC Bank account at Ramanthapur but were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, as per return memos dated 15-03-2025. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 24-03-2025 to the accused demanding payment of Rs.3,00,000/- which was duly served. Despite service of the notice, the petitioner neither paid the cheque amount nor issued any reply.

3. Heard Mr.S.Ravendar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “NI Act”), invoking the provisions of Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 averred that he and petitioner are closely related and well acquainted. The petitioner approached him and requested a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 01.06.2023 for purchasing a house plot. Accordingly, respondent No.2 arranged the said amount, and the petitioner agreed to repay it with interest at 12% per annum. When respondent No.2 demanded repayment, the petitioner executed three promissory notes in respect of the said amount. Despite several demands for repayment along with accrued interest, the petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos.060657 dated 11.03.2025 and 060656 dated 12.03.2025, drawn on Union Bank, Ghatkesar Branch. The cheques were presented on 12.03.2025 and were returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a legal notice dated 24.03.2025. Despite service of the notice, the petitioner neither paid the cheque amount nor issued any reply. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed the complaint. The learned Magistrate, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS , took cognizance and issued summons.

4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner did not receive any amount as alleged in the complaint and only stood as a guarantor, issuing the cheque in that capacity. There is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2, and hence, the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner did not receive summons and came to know about the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court only upon receipt of the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW). Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the