Disputed questions of fact, such as the financial capacity of a lender or the theft of cheques in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding, cannot be adjudicated at the quashing stage and must be determined during the trial.

Order

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in STC.NI.No.269 of 2025 on the file of the XXII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendranagar.

2. Heard Mr.Parikshith Kutur, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case by making omnibus allegations. He further submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2, and therefore the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is not having the financial capacity to lend a huge amount of Rs.2 Crore, and respondent No.2 has not filed any statement of income or income tax returns along with the complaint. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is an employee of the petitioner’s Sweet Shop and has stolen the cheques and filed the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner has already lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 regarding the alleged theft of cheques, and the said complaint is pending before the Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record, it reveals that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint invoking Sections 210 read with 223 of the BNSS in the month of September, 2025 against the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 318(4) of the BNS. Respondent No.2 in his complaint specifically mentioned that at the request of the petitioner, he had given a loan of Rs.1 Crore 25 Lakhs in the year 2022. When respondent No.2 demanded repayment of the amounts due, the petitioner issued cheques bearing Nos.119302, 119304, 119305 and 119306. The said cheques were presented before the bank and were returned on 14.08.2025 with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a legal notice on 09.09.2025. Even after receiving the said notice, the petitioner neither replied nor paid the amount due. Consequently, respondent No.2 filed the complaint. The learned Trial Court, after recording the sworn statement of respondent No.2, took cognizance and issued summons.

5. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 does not have the financial capacity to lend such a huge amount to the petitioner and there is no enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2, and the cheques were allegedly stolen by respondent No.2 and a false complaint was filed, the said allegations are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage and the same have to be revealed during the course of trial.

6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner while exercising powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.

7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.