ORDER : 1. The Criminal Petition No.7756 of 2024 is filed to quash CC.No.73 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Court at Vijayawada. The Criminal Petition No.7758 of 2024 is filed for quashing CC.No.353 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada. The accused is common in both the cases. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the quash petitions are filed seeking quash of the Calendar Cases which were registered under Section 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. As per the complaint filed against the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have issued the cheques drawn on Vijaya Bank, Kunchanapalli Branch. Those cheques were presented for clearance on 08.08.2022 with the complainant’s banker. 4. The said cheques were returned dishonoured with an endorsement referred to drawer, old bank cheque MICR not present, excluded in system. The complainant thereafter got issued a statutory legal notice and filed complaints. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1 st respondent was in possession of old cheques of the erstwhile Vijaya Bank and the same were presented after the amalgamation of the Vijaya Bank and Dena Bank with Bank of Baroda. It is submitted that with effect from 11.03.2019 the amalgamation of Vijaya Bank and Dena Bank with Bank of Baroda is considered as the recorded date. A Gazette Notification was also issued on 02.01.2019. 6. It is also submitted that with effect from 30.03.2019 all branches of Vijaya Bank and Dena Bank started functioning as branches of Bank of Baroda. In those circumstances the cheques of Vijaya Bank which were presented by the complainant cannot be considered as Negotiable Instruments. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has resorted to a fraudulent activity of handing over stale cheques by duly filling in the amounts which were rightly due payable to the complainant. It is also submitted that on the assurance of the petitioner, that the cheques would be cleared as and when presented after the due date mentioned on the cheque, the complainant had presented those cheques. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is guilty of cheating and playing fraud with a mischievous motive. 9. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is guilty of cheating and playing fraud with a mischievous motive. 9. The point for consideration before the Court is whether the grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings in CC.No.73 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Court at Vijayawada and for quashing CC.No.353 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada. Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads follows ; [6. “Cheque”.—A “cheque” is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, the expressions— 2 [(a) “a cheque in the electronic form” means a cheque drawn in electronic form by using any computer resource and signed in a secure system with digital signature (with or without biometrics signature) and asymmetric crypto system or with electronic signature, as the case may be;] (b) “a truncated cheque” means a cheque which is truncated during the course of a clearing cycle, either by the clearing house or by the bank whether paying or receiving payment, immediately on generation of an electronic image for transmission, substituting the further physical movement of the cheque in writing. Explanation II.— For the purposes of this section, the expression “clearing house” means the clearing house managed by the Reserve Bank of India or a clearing house recognised as such by the Reserve Bank of India.] 3 [Explanation III.—For the purposes of this section, the expressions “asymmetric crypto system”, “computer resource”, “digital signature”, “electronic form” and “electronic signature” shall have the same meanings respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000(21 of 2000).] 10. Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows ; 13.“Negotiable instrument”.—3 [(1) A “negotiable instrument” means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer. Explanation (i)—A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is payable to order which is expressed to be so payable or which is expressed to be payable to a particular person, and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable. Explanation (i)—A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is payable to order which is expressed to be so payable or which is expressed to be payable to a particular person, and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable. Explanation (ii)—A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is payable to bearer which is expressed to be so payable or on which the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank. Explanation (iii)—Where a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque, either originally or by indorsement, is expressed to be payable to the order of a specified person, and not to him or his order, it is nevertheless payable to him or his order at his option.] 4 [(2) A negotiable instrument may be made payable to two or more payees jointly, or it may be made payable in the alternative to one of two, or one or some of serveral payees.] 11. As seen from the definition of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specific banker. The banker as on the date of presentation of the cheque ought to honour the same subject to the standard checks and balances. 12. In the facts of the present case, Vijaya Bank ceased to exist as a banker as on the date when the cheques were presented. The instrument which was drawn on Vijaya Bank looses the identity as a cheque. The movement the amalgamation of banks was recorded and the date notified by the banker to all its customers to surrender the old and collect the cheques of the bank into which the earlier bank as amalgamated. 13. As on the date of presentation of the instrument the same was not considered as a Negotiable Instrument and as a cheque issued by the Bank of Baroda and as such the cheques were returned with an endorsement referred to drawer, old bank cheque MICR not present, excluded in system. The banker found them true, valid and ineligible for clearance on account of the amalgamation of the Vijaya Bank into Bank of Baroda. 14. As the fundamental instrument on which the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act is filed has lost its identity as a valid cheque as on the date of its presentation. The banker found them true, valid and ineligible for clearance on account of the amalgamation of the Vijaya Bank into Bank of Baroda. 14. As the fundamental instrument on which the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act is filed has lost its identity as a valid cheque as on the date of its presentation. The criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act also cannot lie. Only a Negotiable Instrument can be subject of a complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds the case as a fit case for exercise of the inherit powers of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshita Sanhita, 2023. 15. The petitions are allowed and the CC.No.73 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Court at Vijayawada and CC.No.353 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada are quashed. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.