Dismissed

B.Pedda Venkataeswarlu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh And Another

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2023CRLP/8436/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition invoking Article 226 CrPC to quash a Section 138 NI Act complaint. The Court held that the allegation of forged signature was a disputed question of fact requiring trial and offered no legal grounds for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application under Section 205 CrPC for dispensation of appearance.

B.Pedda Venkataeswarlu Vs The State of Andhra… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8436 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Pedda Venkataeswarlu, S/o Nadipi Samanna, Aged about 60 years, R/o. A. Kodur Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District,^A.P

¶8

...Petltioner/A-2

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana^{andtheStateofAndhra} Pradesh

¶11

B.Thirupam Reddy, S/o Thirupal Reddy, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Chakirevula Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District, Now residing at H.N0.8/132-E, Venkatadri Nagar, Near Gooty Road, Kurnool

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 quash all further proceedings in C.C No. 1663 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶15

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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C No. 1663 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool pending disposal of the present criminal petition.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

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 extend the interim orders granted on 15.4.2019, further got extended by order dated 23.4.2019 in CrI.P. No. 8436 of 2018 to until further orders.

¶18

¶19

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019

¶20

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 extend the interim orders granted on 1504-2019 further got extended by different orders in CrI.P. 8436/2018 to until further orders.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

¶22

The Court made the following Order:

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8436 OF 2018

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present criminal petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.l663 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool and to quash the^same.

¶27

The petitioner/A-2 borrowed some amount from the 2"^ respondent/complainant. When the complainant demanded for the amount, the petitioner/A-2 has given a cheque bearing^No.005008 dated 01.07.2017 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn^on State Bank of India. When the same was presented before the^Axisbankon 01.07.2017 and the same was returned/bounced on 03.07.2017^with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

¶28

Since, the cheque was bounced the 2"^ respondent herein^has issued a notice dated 25.07.2017, as per the procedure prescribed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the “N.I.Act”) and filed the private complaint for^the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The said complaint was assailed in the present criminal petition, on the ground that the 2'^'* respondent forged the signature of the petitioner’s son and made the petitioner as a party to the proceedings and the petitioner has not issued any cheque, which was disputed in the private complaint, to the 2'^^ respondent herein and the principle of vicarious liability does not arise, hence, urged to

quash the aforesaid private complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶33

Whether the petitioner has issued the cheque or the signature on the cheque ivas forged by the complainant?, is a disputed question of fact, which has to be decided during the course of trial. No legal grounds were raised in the criminal petition. All the grounds raised are disputed facts.

¶34

Therefore, this Court found no reasons to quash the proceedings. Hence, the Criminal Petition IS dismissed. Petitioner/accused is at liberty to raise all the grounds^{beforethetrial} Court and the Court shall consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner/accused before the Court below, during the^{courseoftrial.} However, petitioner/accused is at liberty to file an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Magistrate, who in turn, is directed to consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

9 Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Kurnool. 3 Two Ravulapalli, Advocate [OPUC] i Tree%D copies Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi^[OUTJ LRV sree

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12/12/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.8436 of 2018

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶47

. >'-1

¶48

’’A
<br>-A
AV
% 4
%S.'-
>
A''

¶49

■\ J

B.Pedda Venkataeswarlu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Pedda Venkataeswarlu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Sathyanarayana Vs State of Ap.

Sri Dhanakshmi Spinning Mills Vs the State of A.P.

Sri Madineedi Venkata Ramakrishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chalasani Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Ap

B.Krishna naik Vs The State of Ap.

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh