ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused to suspend the condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount passed in Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 passed by Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. 2. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. G.M. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State. Perused the material on record. 3. STC.NI.No.1047 of 2021 is renumbered as CC.NI.No.122 of 2023 on the file of XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Complaint is lodged under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) r/w 190 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that accused/petitioner approached the complainant requesting her to arrange a hand loan of Rs.22,00,000/- on 10.05.2018 for business purpose. That complainant paid an amount vide cheque bearing No.000032 dated 10.05.2018, drawn on Andhra Bank, Hyderbasthi Branch, Secunderabad. Accused promised to return the amount in 50 EMI’s @ Rs.66,000/-. Two installments to be paid every month including flat rate of interest and principal amount. Accused executed a promissory note, issued 50 cheques and a letter dated 25.04.2018. Of the 50 cheques issued, 42 were cleared and 8 cheques for Rs.66,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank were not deposited by complainant on instructions of accused. As the dates on the said cheques expired and on a demand by complainant, several times, accused issued cheque bearing No.194915, dated 27.03.2021 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Yes Bank. This amount includes a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- towards compensation for delay in repayment of EMI’s. Complainant presented cheque at Andhra Bank, cheque was returned vide cheque return Memo dated 29.03.2021 with an endorsement “Account Dormant”. Complainant issued a notice dated 03.04.2021 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days by way of RPAD, received on 07.04.2021, but failed to repay the cheque amount. Complainant issued a notice dated 03.04.2021 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days by way of RPAD, received on 07.04.2021, but failed to repay the cheque amount. A complaint came to be filed, trial Court by an elaborate judgment after discussing the entire factual matrix of the case, considered the evidence adduced and by an order dated 05.08.2024, found the accused guilty for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,01,000/-. 4. Trial Court examined PWs.1 and 2. None were examined for defence. Exs.P1 to P8 documents were marked for prosecution, no documents were marked for defence. Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 came to be filed in Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024 in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023. In other words, the judgment rendered in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023 was carried in appeal, numbered as Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024, Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 was filed before the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence passed in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023. 5. Learned trial Court in its order dated 05.09.2024, considering Section 148 of NI Act, directed the accused to deposit minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. Trial Court suspended the sentence on the condition that petitioner deposits 20% of the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- which comes to Rs.1,60,000/- to be deposited in two spells i.e., Rs.80,000/- by 21.10.2024 and Rs.80,000/- by 21.11.2024. The said amount was to be deposited in the trial Court and acknowledgments to be filed, failing which the application would stand dismissed. The appellate Court further directed the issuance of NBW against petitioner/accused, if the order was not complied in stipulated time. It is this order which is under challenge in this criminal petition. 6. Learned counsel for accused/petitioner contended that an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- borrowed as hand loan from complainant was repaid in full and that this is an admitted fact. Learned counsel further submitted that in total an amount of Rs.27,72,000/- was paid. It is further submitted that once entire amount is paid, question of paying any excess amount would not arise. 6. Learned counsel for accused/petitioner contended that an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- borrowed as hand loan from complainant was repaid in full and that this is an admitted fact. Learned counsel further submitted that in total an amount of Rs.27,72,000/- was paid. It is further submitted that once entire amount is paid, question of paying any excess amount would not arise. It is also submitted that as per the terms, transaction principal amount of Rs.22,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- towards that profit was to be the amount payable to complainant. That complainant received Rs.72,000/- in excess and when accused sought for it, a false complaint was filed. That when accused/petitioner further requested return of 8 cheques, the complaint is lodged. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in law and in facts and has not appreciated the entire factual matrix of the case in a proper perspective. It is further submitted that once entire amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (principal amount) and profit of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid, no proceedings against accused/petitioner can be initiated, hence, the complaint being false is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & others , Crl. Appeal No. 2741 of 2023. 8. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.6 of the judgment dated 04.09.2023 and contended that if the appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% is unjust, an exception can be made by assigning reasons. That the appellate Court misguided itself in not considering the case of accused/petitioner as an exception, hence, order dated 05.09.2024 is not valid in the eye of law. When this Court queried as to whether a copy of the Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 filed is annexed as documents for perusal of grounds raised for suspension of condition of deposit of 20%, it is submitted that it is not annexed. Learned counsel has made efforts to invite the attention of this Court to ground raised in the criminal petition. 9. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Muskan Enterprises and Another v. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 and contended that exception can always be carved out for depositing 20% of amount. 9. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Muskan Enterprises and Another v. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 and contended that exception can always be carved out for depositing 20% of amount. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case of exception and the said direction to deposit is unwarranted. 10. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.1 submitted that, accused approached for hand loan of Rs.22,00,000/- and promised to pay the amount. It is further submitted that accused handed 50 cheques to complainant pertaining to Syndicate Bank. That as per agreed terms, accused has to pay a monthly installment @ Rs.1,32,000/- including interest and principal amount. It is also submitted that accused failed to repay the installment from 10.03.2020 till 15.06.2020 amounting to Rs.5,28,000/-. It is admitted that accused paid an amount of Rs.27,72,000/-. Learned counsel for respondent submits that Rs.8,00,000/- is the amount which the accused has to pay for non-payment of 8 EMI’s. That Ex.P2 cheque is issued on Yes bank and that when the cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “dormant account”. That Ex.P4 is the legal notice. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel that it is for the non- payment of amount of 8 EMI’s, a complaint is lodged and that there is no infirmity. It is further submitted that the trial Court had held that accused did not make out a prima facie case, that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of debt or liability, that accused having not rebutted the presumption raised under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act, accused was found guilty. It is contended that petitioner discharged the entire liability and nothing remains. That Appellate Court directed the accused to deposit a sum of 20% of fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court, certain conditions were imposed for payment. That accused instead of complying with the directions approached this Court by way of criminal petition. It is pointed out that the appellate Court issued directions to the Magistrate Court to issue NBW for non-compliance of order in stipulated time. 12. That accused instead of complying with the directions approached this Court by way of criminal petition. It is pointed out that the appellate Court issued directions to the Magistrate Court to issue NBW for non-compliance of order in stipulated time. 12. Learned counsel contended that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot delve into the merits of the case, that appellate Court on facts concluded that trial Court’s order needs no interference and hence, this Court at this stage cannot delve into the facts. 13. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 14. Facts are not in dispute. Amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was given as hand loan by complainant to accused/petitioner. 50 cheques were issued, drawn on Syndicate bank. 42 cheques were honoured, for the remaining 8 cheques, accused instructed complainant not to present. It is for the remaining amount of 8 cheques, complainant was seeking repayment. Accused issued a cheque of Rs.8,00,000/-, drawn on Yes bank. It is borne by record that the said cheque was presented to Andhra bank and it was returned vide a Memo with an endorsement “account dormant”. A legal notice was issued for which there was no response. It is subsequent to the issuance of legal notice, complaint under Section 138 of NI Act came to be filed. The trial Court, having examined the witnesses and considering the documents marked, found the accused guilty the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, in its judgment dated 05.08.2024 (in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023). The operative portion of the judgment is as follows: “36. In a complaint under Section 138 of the NI.Act, the requirements are, as to whether the complainant has followed the procedure provided under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act. When the requirements under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act are fulfilled, the irresistible conclusion to which the Court shall arrive at is that, there is a legally enforceable debt and that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In this case, it is an admission on the part of the accused that the Ex.P2 cheque was pertaining to his account and that the cheque bears his signature. In this case, it is an admission on the part of the accused that the Ex.P2 cheque was pertaining to his account and that the cheque bears his signature. Therefore, the fact that the Ex.P2 cheque drawn from the account of the accused which is duly signed by the accused, a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant that the Ex.P2 cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt liability. The accused did not choose to repay the amount due under subject cheque even after receipt of Ex.P4 legal notice. 37. The complainant filed all the relevant documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P8 to prove her case that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque to discharge the legally enforceable debt. This Court by considering the entire oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that, the complainant is able to establish her case by examining herself as PWI and by exhibiting Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and also got examined her father as PW2 that, she gave an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- to the accused, having received the said amount, the accused repaid 42 EMIs but failed to repay 8 EMIs due to his Financial difficulties, and on demand issued Ex.P2 cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- in lieu of discharge of his liability to repay 8 EMIs and delay in payment of the said EMIs, on presenting the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Dormant Account” and even after Ex.P4 Legal Notice, the accused did not pay the amount due under subject Cheque and that the complainant fulfilled all the ingredients mandated U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in filing the complaint. When accused failed to rebut such presumption that the presumption drawn under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands in favour of the complainant. Therefore when the accused failed to discharge the burden by adducing probable defence, he cannot escape from the criminal liability under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 38. In the instant case the accused did not even let in evidence which would rebut the presumption drawn under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Therefore when the accused failed to discharge the burden by adducing probable defence, he cannot escape from the criminal liability under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 38. In the instant case the accused did not even let in evidence which would rebut the presumption drawn under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the light of above decisions and discussion this court is of the considered view that the accused failed to put forth probable defence to rebut the presumption raised under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and on the other hand the complainant proved all the essential ingredients to attract the provisions for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Under such circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has not made out even a prima facie case that the cheque was not issued in discharge of debt/ liability. Therefore, without any hesitation this Court holds that the accused has not rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding the purpose for which the cheque was issued. Therefore accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accused is liable for conviction under section 255(2) Criminal Procedure Code.” 15. Matter was carried in appeal. Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 came to be filed in Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024 under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence. Appellate Court by an order dated 05.09.2024, considering the Section 148 of NI Act, passed the following order. “In the result, this petition is allowed, sentence imposed by the XVI Additional Judge cum XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C in C.C.NI.No.122 of 2023 (STC.NI.No.1047 of 2021) is suspended on the same terms and conditions imposed by the trial court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. That means 20% of the compensation amount comes to Rs.1,60,000/- and this amount may be deposited in TWO SPELLS i.e., Rs.80,000/- by 21.10.2024 and Rs.80,000/- by 21.11.2024, respectively. Appellant/accused is directed to deposit said amount in FDRs in the name of trial court and file acknowledgments to that effect, (Memo along with copy of FDRs with SR number of the trial court) failing which this application shall stands dismissed. Appellant/accused is directed to deposit said amount in FDRs in the name of trial court and file acknowledgments to that effect, (Memo along with copy of FDRs with SR number of the trial court) failing which this application shall stands dismissed. The learned trial court Magistrate is directed to issue Non Bailable Warrant against this petitioner/appellant on non compliance of this order in stipulated time.” 16. As extracted supra, complaint was filed under Section 138 of NI Act, for an amount of 8 cheques issued by accused, no where it is denied by accused that cheques were not given to complainant. Contention raised is as per the terms, accused/petitioner paid the entire loan amount of Rs.22,00,000/- plus profit of Rs.5,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.72,000/- was paid over and above. That when accused/ petitioner sought for the return of Rs.72,000/-, complainant made a false complaint. 17. Question is of the cheque issued for the amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. There is no denial that the cheque is not issued by accused/petitioner for the discharge of liability. It is also observed from the record that accused/petitioner and complainant are carrying same business and that accused, complainant and complainant’s father had acquaintance. Out of acquaintance, accused approached the complainant at her residence and sought hand loan. No where it is forthcoming in the judgment of the trial Court that petitioner/accused issued cheque i.e., Ex.P2 to father of complainant for discharge of liability. Question considered by the trial Court was whether cheque issued is for discharge of a legally enforceable debt and duly signed by accused. It is common knowledge that when a cheque is duly signed and issued, a statutory presumption arises that such cheque is issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Cheque issued pertains to the account of accused/petitioner and bears his signature. 18. Ex.P2 is a cheque drawn on the account of accused, duly signed, hence, a statutory presumption arises that Ex.P2 is issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. No doubt, a contention is raised that a cheque is issued to the father and not to the complainant. But, nothing is placed on record to show that such a presumption can be drawn. No doubt, a contention is raised that a cheque is issued to the father and not to the complainant. But, nothing is placed on record to show that such a presumption can be drawn. Accused/petitioner has not been able to impress upon the trial Court or adduce any evidence nor establish before the trial Court that the contention raised before this Court that the cheque is issued to the father and not to the complainant. In the absence of any such demonstration, this Court cannot delve into such factual aspect nor re-appreciate such facts. This Court is not inclined to find favour with the contentions advanced by learned counsel for accused/ petitioner, no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court in Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024. 19. For reasons aforesaid, criminal petition is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.