Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 370 (TS)

Dr Srinivas Rendla v. State Of Telangana

2020-03-11

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2018 on the file of the III-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"), inter alia, stating that the 2nd respondent/complainant is doing business under the name and style "Royal Engineers" at Uppal, Hyderabad and one Dr.Devender Reddy, Medical Director of Amma Hospital, was his family friend and the said Dr.Devender Reddy introduced the petitioner/accused as his friend. The petitioner/accused developed acquaintance with the 2nd respondent/Complainant and requested through Dr.Devender Reddy in the month of November, 2017, to arrange hand loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- for his personal and family needs and agreed to repay the same along with interest at 1% per annum within six months. Considering the said request, the 2nd respondent/complainant had arranged the said amount and paid to the petitioner/accused on 16.11.2017 in the presence of Dr.Devender Reddy and others, and the petitioner/accused had issued three post dated cheques i.e., Cheque bearing No.525274 for Rs. 4,00,000/-, Cheque No.525275 for Rs. 3,00,000/- and Cheque No.525276 for Rs. 3,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Adilabad. After lapse of six months, the 2nd respondent/complainant requested the petitioner/accused for repayment of the above hand loan with interest, but the petitioner/accused promised to pay the said amount two months thereafter. After two months, the 2nd respondent/complainant had presented the said cheques in his account in Indian Bank, Uppal Branch, for realization, but the same were returned unpaid with an endorsement "Payment Stopped by Drawer". After complying with all the requirements as contemplated under the Act, a private complaint came to be filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.168 of 2018. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the above C.C. 3. Heard Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.Goutham, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/ complainant. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the petitioner/accused had taken a hand loan of Rs. Heard Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.Goutham, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/ complainant. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the petitioner/accused had taken a hand loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 22.05.2014 from his friend Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad and his wife Dr.Spandana and the said amount was deposited in the account of the petitioner/accused on 22.05.2014. While taking loan, the petitioner/accused agreed to pay Rs. 9,00,000/- after four years including interest at 2.5% per annum. In the month of March, 2018, on the request made by Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad, the petitioner/accused had issued three blank cheques to him towards security of the said hand loan. It is further submitted that Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad, informed the petitioner/accused that during shifting of their hospital to new premises at Bhadrachalam, the cheques issued by the petitioner/accused were misplaced and that all his efforts to trace the cheques failed. Later on, the petitioner/ accused and Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad, Dr.G.Spandana, entered into an agreement, dated 11.05.2018 with an understanding that Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad and Dr.G.Spandana, shall take responsibility at their expenses for the misuse/legal disputes, if any, in respect of the said cheques. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused had paid the loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- through cheques bearing Nos.000037, 000038 and 000039, dated 10.05.2018, 01.06.2018 and 15.08.2018 respectively and cleared off the entire debt due to Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent/complainant alleged that the petitioner/accused issued post dated cheques as security on 16.11.2017, but the cheque book status of the petitioner/accused shows that the date of indent for issuance of the cheque book was made on 20.11.2017 and the date of delivery was on 27.11.2017. Therefore, it is explicit that the 2nd respondent/complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint as there is no possibility of issuing post dated cheques on a date when cheque book was not even printed/issued by the bank. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent/complainant colluded with Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad and illegally obtained the cheques signed by the petitioner/accused and cooked up a false story against the petitioner/accused only to harass him and to extract money. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent/complainant colluded with Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad and illegally obtained the cheques signed by the petitioner/accused and cooked up a false story against the petitioner/accused only to harass him and to extract money. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that there exists a legally enforceable debt between the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/complainant, which is mandatory for the proceedings to be initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant reiterating the contents mentioned in the complaint would submit that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint can only be decided during the course of trial and the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. 7. In order to constitute an office under Section 138 of the Act, the 2nd respondent/complainant has to fulfill the following requirements, which are as follows:- 1. Cheque who have been issued for the discharge in whole or part of any debt or any other liability. 2. The cheque should have been presented before the bank within the period of six months or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. 3. The payee should have issued a legal notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within of 30 days from the date of information from the bank. 4. After receipt of the notice, the drawer should have failed to pay cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. 5. On payment of the amount due, on the dishonored cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the drawer, the complaint should have been filed by the complaint within one month from the date of expiry of grace time of 15 days before a metropolitan Magistrate or not below the rank of JMFC. 8. A perusal of the material on record would show that there is no relationship between the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/complainant. The contention of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused had issued post dated cheques on 16.11.2017, but a perusal of the cheque book dispatch status of the petitioner would show that the date of indent for issuance of cheque book was made on 20.11.2017 and the date of delivery to branch/customer on 27.11.2017. The contention of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused had issued post dated cheques on 16.11.2017, but a perusal of the cheque book dispatch status of the petitioner would show that the date of indent for issuance of cheque book was made on 20.11.2017 and the date of delivery to branch/customer on 27.11.2017. Since the cheque book was not delivered to the petitioner/accused till 27.11.2017, the question of petitioner/ accused issuing the post dated cheques on 16.11.2017, the date on which the petitioner/accused has not made any indent for issuance of the cheque book, to the 2nd respondent/complainant would not arise. Apart from that a perusal of the agreement, dated 11.05.2018, would show that the said Dr.Shiva Ramakrishna Prasad, in whose favour the petitioner/accused issued the subject cheques, informed to the petitioner/accused that the cheques issued by the petitioner/ accused towards security were misplaced during shifting of their hospital to new premises and entered into agreement with an understanding that he shall take responsibility if the said cheques were misused or any legal dispute arising from out of the misplaced cheques. It is also to be noted that the 2nd respondent/ complainant failed to place on record to show that the cheques have been issued in order to discharge a legally enforceable debt. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, no prima-facie case under Section 138 of the Act is culled out even if the impugned complaint is taken at its face value. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned complaint would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, this is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to secure the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.168 of 2018 on the file of the III-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.