This court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court rejected arguments that the debt was time-barred and that a blocked account due to non-statutory reasons exonerates the accused.
Criminal Petition No. 1507 of 2019 dismissed; CCNo.491/2018 proceedings continued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No: 1507 OF 2019
Between;
Alvarsetty Chenchaiah, S/o Chenchu Ramaiah D.No.JB 85, Old Judge Bungalow, Back side of Park, Mulapet, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore Dist.
...PETITIONER / ACCUSED
... RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT
...RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to quash the CC.No.491/2018 on the file of IIAddl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.491/2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore including appearance of the petitioner / accused. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following Order;
f
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1507 OF 2019
ORDER;
The present criminal petition is filed to quash theC.C.No.491 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act”).
- As per the averments in the complaint, it seems that the petitioner/accused has availed loan from the 2nd respondent/complainant and executed a promissory note on 22.09.2016, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. For discharging the said debt amounts, the petitionerhereinhas issued a cheque bearing No.772117, dated 10.08.2018 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/m favour of the 2nd respondent/complainant, drawn on Corporation Bank, Nellore. The cheque was presented in the drawee bank and the same was bounced/returned with an endorsement “account blocked situation covered in 2125”.
- The said complaint was assailed in the present criminal petition on the ground that the debt is time barred debt and there is no fault on the petitioner/accused, as the account was blocked
2
by the bank. Therefore, he would urge to quash the complaint filed by the 2"'! respondent/complainant.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/S Ceasefire Industries ltd V. state and others/ the High Court by an order dated 01.05.2017, dismissed the complaints. Wherein, in that case the complainant was aware of the fact that the accounts have been frozen i in terms of directions issued by statutooi authority. The said judgment is not applicable to the present facts, as the petitioner/accused has not issued any reply to the notice issued by the 2^^ respondent/complainant, stating that his accounts were frozen on the direction of any statutory authority.
^^rl.L.P.No.51 of 2017, dated 01.05.2017 CRM-M-14537 of 2018, dated 01.07.2019
3
f:
any notice stating that his account was blocked and not to present any Cheque. Therefore, the two judgments relied bythelearned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence, the ground raised by the learned counselfor the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
- The 2nd ground that was raised by the learned counselforthe petitioner is that the debt is time barred debt. As seen from the material papers filed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner/accused has executed a promissory note on22.09.2016 and the Cheque was issued on 10.08.2018, which is within three years period.
- Hence, it is clear that the debt is not a time barred debt. Therefore, both the contentions raised by the petitioner/accused has no legs to stand.
- Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinginthis Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
SD/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
GLM
AL
HIGH COURT
<br>
DATED:23/11/2023
ORDER
CRLP.No.1507 of 2019
..•‘S
^df ano^
o T'-',
■|:r mi
A'3 15 MAR 202A r.f '
.'K.
Currerst Section *'
V
>:V
■>
03 i_
DISMISSING THE CRL.P. WITHOUT COSTS.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a cheque bounced due to a blocked account issued for a non-time-barred debt within the consideration section of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.
Whether the debt underlying the cheque dishonour is time-barred when the promissory note was executed in 2016 and the cheque was issued in 2018.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/S Ceasefire Industries ltd vs. State and othersDistinguished¶26
M/S Ceasefire Industries ltd V. state and others/ the High Court
Rajeesh Meena vs. State of HaryanaDistinguished¶27
Rajeesh Meena V. State of Haryana and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Alvarsetty Chenchaiah
The State of A.P.
Nagareddy Amogh Hemanth Reddy
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
