ORDER: J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11868 of 2021 on the file of the XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). 2. Brief facts of the case: On 17.04.2021 at about 15:00 hours, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint, wherein he stated that his firm undertakes government civil contract works and that, in the course of business, the Directors of M/s Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited, including the petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3, who were directors of the firm and responsible for the in day-to-day affairs, approached him between May 2015 and April 2017 and obtained a hand loan of Rs. 14,20,00,000/-. They agreed to repay Rs. 12,00,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum and clear the remaining Rs. 2,20,00,000/- within a short period. However, they failed to honour these commitments for several years. At that stage, respondent No.2 filed C.C.Nos.235 of 2018 and 304 of 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner and the other accused requested withdrawal of those cases and agreed to pay the amounts and executed (Memorandum of Understanding) MoU on 13.02.2020 and they given D.D. for Rs.1,00,00,000/- and they issued post-dated cheques for Rs.11,00,00,000/-. When the said cheques were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement “account blocked situation covered in 2125” and the petitioner did not respond to the statutory notice issued by him and he further stated that the petitioner had dishonestly issued cheques and misused the amount of Rs.8,35,90,000/-. He also stated that on each and every stage, there is dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and other accused. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 73/2021 was registered on 17.04.2021 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC , and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed final report and the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused in C.C.No.11868 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner filed this criminal petition. 3. Heard Mr. G. Veera Babu, learned for the petitioner, Mr. G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. 4. Hence, the petitioner filed this criminal petition. 3. Heard Mr. G. Veera Babu, learned for the petitioner, Mr. G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations made in the complaint and the final report are purely civil in nature as it is for recovery of the amount and the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC do not attract. 4.2. He further submitted that with respect to the very same allegations, respondent No.2 had already filed complaints, namely STC.NI.Nos. 284, 285, 290 and 295 of 2021, which are pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’). Respondent No.2 ought to have include the offence under Section 420 of the IPC , while filing the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, on the other hand, he filed the present complaint for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC , which amounts to double jeopardy, and the same is not permissible under law as per the provisions of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C . 4.3. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients under Section 420 of the IPC , especially there is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the date of inception. In the absence of the specific allegation to attract the offence under Section 420 of the IPC , the continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments: 1. A.M. Mohan v. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339 2. Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 998 3. M/s. Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643 4. G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 5. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another, (2012) 7 SCC 621 6. M/s. Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643 4. G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 5. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another, (2012) 7 SCC 621 6. J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1010 7. Sripati Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Son Gaurav Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002 and 8. Order in Criminal Petition No.4174 of 2024; 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and other directors of M/s.Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited obtained loan on behalf of their company from respondent No.2 to a tune of Rs.14,20,00,000/- between the period from May, 2015, to April, 2017, and they have agreed to pay Rs.12,00,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/- within short period on a mutual understanding. Due to delay in repayment for years together, respondent No.2 filed C.C.No.235 of 2018 on the file of the Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, Nampally, and also filed another C.C.No.304 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. When the said cases were pending, the petitioner and other directors have approached respondent No.2 for amicable settlement outside the Court and promised to pay part debt of Rs.11,00,00,000/- by way of monthly installments and issued post-dated cheques. Accordingly, the petitioner and other accused have executed entered MoU on 13.02.2020 and 14.02.2020 with respondent No.2. At the time of execution of MoU, the petitioner and others have given demand draft for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- dated 06.02.2020 as a part payment of due amount and also issued eleven (11) post-dated cheques for an amount of Rs.11,00,00,000/-. Believing their words, respondent No.2 had withdrawn the above said three cases and subsequently, he presented the cheques in his bank and the said cheques were returned with an endorsement ‘account blocked’. 5.2. He further submitted that there is a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and other accused from the date of inception and executed MoU, issued post-dated cheques and blocked the account intentionally to avoid the payment. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC are attracted against the petitioner. 5.2. He further submitted that there is a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and other accused from the date of inception and executed MoU, issued post-dated cheques and blocked the account intentionally to avoid the payment. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC are attracted against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of the witnesses, filed a final report, wherein it is specifically mentioned about the role of the petitioner, which attracts the ingredients of the offence under Sections 420 of the IPC . 5.3. He also submitted that the allegations made in 138 N.I. Acts cases and allegations made in present case are totally different and distinct. In Section 138 N.I. Acts, once issuance of the cheque for discharging legally enforceable debt or liability is not in dispute, the burden of proof lies upon the accused under Section 139 of the NI Act, whereas for the penal offences, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and the proceedings in the present C.C. are totally different and distinct and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings. 5.4. He further submitted that even the judgment which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in G.Sagar Suri supra was referred to the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue is pending. Reply submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that mere pendency of the issue before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri supra, is not a ground to keep the matter pending and even in the absence of G. Sagar Suri judgment supra, the proceedings in C.C.No.11868 of 2021 is liable to be quashed on the ground that as allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil in nature i.e., for recovery of the amount. Analysis 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. Analysis 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 initially filed two complaints against the petitioner and others vide C.C.No.235 of 2018 on the file of the I Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, and C.C.No.304 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that when the said cases are pending, the petitioner and other accused have approached respondent No.2 and requested to withdraw pending cases and they are ready and willing to pay the amounts. Accordingly, they entered MoU with respondent No.2 on 13.02.2020 and 14.02.2020. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that while entering into the said MoU, the petitioner and others have handed over D.D.No.296077 dated 06.02.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as part payment of dues, and they issued eleven (11) post-dated cheques for an amount of Rs.11,00,00,000/- and when the said cheques were presented by respondent No.2 in his bank, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘account blocked situation covered in 2125’. 8. The record further reveals that respondent No.2’s firm namely M/s.BNR Constructions filed STC.N.I.Nos.284, 285 and 290 of 2021 against the petitioner and others under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act read with Section 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C . Respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint, which is registered as Crime No.73 of 2021 on 17.04.2021 for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC . In the complaint, he specifically stated that the petitioner and other accused have issued the cheques for discharge legally enforcement debt and intentionally blocked the bank account, played fraud, cheated him with their acts and deeds, and mis-used money of Rs.8,35,90,000/-. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 8 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C ., filed the final report, wherein they specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner. 9. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 8 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C ., filed the final report, wherein they specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and the final report is civil in nature and respondent No.2 lodged the complaint implicating the petitioner as accused to settle the monetary disputes is not tenable under law on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner about his dishonest intention and there is a criminal intent on his part to cheat respondent No.2 from inception and executed MoU and blocked the account. 10. In A.M. Mohan supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose any dishonest or fraudulent inducement at the inception, and that the allegation was essentially contractual, thereby not attracting Sections 415 or 420 IPC . In Ashok Kumar Jain supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C , the Court cannot weigh the evidence or conduct a mini-trial, and that quashing is an exception. In M/s Shikhar Chemicals supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the reasoning that criminal proceedings should continue merely because civil remedies may be time-consuming, and held that criminal law cannot be converted into a mechanism for recovery in matters that are purely civil in character. 11. On a careful consideration of the allegations and the sequence of the events, it is evident that the petitioners acted with fraudulent intent from the very inception, first by failing to honour the initial repayment commitments, and thereafter by inducing the complainant to withdraw the earlier NI Act proceedings by executing an MoU and issuing post-dated cheques, all of which were dishonoured with the endorsement “account blocked,” demonstrating complete absence of bona fides, which prima facie reveal that there is a dishonest intention and act of cheating, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of Sections 415 and 420 IPC . The above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may not come to the aid of the petitioner. 12. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may not come to the aid of the petitioner. 12. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2’s firm has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and when the said case is pending, respondent No.2 cannot file the present complaint with the very same allegations, in view of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C . and it would amount to an abuse of the process of law is concerned, the petitioner has neither been convicted nor acquitted in any similar offence, admittedly which are pending in the competent Courts. Hence, the provisions of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C . are not applicable to the present case. 13. Similarly, the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that based on very same allegations, respondent No.2’s firm has already initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and respondent No.2 ought to have included the offence under Section 420 of the IPC in the very same proceedings, is also tenable under law, because the allegations made in the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and the allegations made in the present complaint for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC are different and distinct. Merely not including the offence under Section 420 of the IPC in 138 NI Act proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 14. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 had already filed cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the same are pending before the trial Court, continuation of the present proceedings for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is an abuse of the process of law by relying upon the principles of G. Sagar Suri, Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel, J. Vedhasingh, Sripati Singh and the order in Criminal Petition No.4174 of 2024 supra are concerned, in J. Vedhasingh supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the issue to a large Bench and the same is pending before the Ho’ble Apex Court. In view of the same, this Court is not go into deal with the above said aspect. 15. In view of the same, this Court is not go into deal with the above said aspect. 15. It is already stated supra that in the complaint, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C . and charge sheet and there are specific allegatiosn against the petitioner that there is dishonest intention from inception and failed to honour their initial repayment obligations but further induced the complainant to withdraw the earlier NI Act proceedings by executing an MoU and issuing eleven post-dated cheques, all of which were dishonoured with the endorsement “account blocked,” thereby manifesting fraudulent intention from the inception. 16. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 350 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C . has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . and the issues/grounds raised by the petitioner are triable issues and this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. 17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.11868 of 2021 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.