Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1014 (AP)

K. Gopidhar v. G. Ramesh

2012-10-12

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2012
ORDER This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No. 62 of 2012 on the file of VIII Special Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The 1st respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 62 of 2012. He filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging inter alia that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- on 16-5-2011 towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and that on presentation, the cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "account closed". Thereupon, the petitioner issued a notice dated 30-8-2011 calling upon the 1st respondent-complainant to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question. The petitioner received the notice on 3-9-2011. Despite notice, the petitioner-accused failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complaint filed by the 1st respondent came to be taken on file by VIII Special Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District at L.B. Nagaras C.C. No. 62 of 2012. Hence this petition by the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings therein. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 1st respondent-complainant issued a legal notice on 3-6-2011 and thereupon, the petitioner-accused paid the amount covered under the cheque in question and therefore, issuance of 2nd legal notice dated 30-8-2011 is only to gain cause of action to file a complaint against the petitioner. In a way, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused that the amount due under the cehque in question has been paid. 5. Per contra; it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 151 respondent-complainant that the 151 respondent-complainant has not issued legal notice on 3-6-2011 and the said notice has not been referred in the complaint filed by him. 6. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 1st respondent-complainant before VIII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B. Nagar. There is no reference to the notice dated 3-6-2011 in the complaint. 6. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 1st respondent-complainant before VIII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B. Nagar. There is no reference to the notice dated 3-6-2011 in the complaint. It is for the petitioner-accused to establish during the course of trial that the 1st respondent-complainant issued notice dated 3-6-2011 consequent on dishonour of cheque on 26-5-2011. Since it is stated that trial has been commenced and evidence has been recorded, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to interdict proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2011 in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interim stay granted on 15-3-2012 shall stand vacated.