Allowed¶38

Smt. Talasila Anitha, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2025CRLP/774/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh HC (Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, 21.11.2025, Crl.P. No.774/2025) allows quash petition under s.528 BNSS/s.482 CrPC: s.138 NI Act proceedings (CC 671/2017, JMFC Kurnool) against wife of Accused No.1 (cheque issuer) quashed — no vicarious liability where cheque issued by husband in personal capacity; continuation is abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings pending against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.671 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶38

Smt. Talasila Anitha, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010037412025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3396]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 774/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

SMT. TALASILA ANITHA,, W/O. T. PRABHAKAR REDDY, C/O. MOURYA RESIDENCY, NEAR JAGAN STUDIOS, PRAGATHI NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NRI COLONY, PHASE -1, HYDERABAD - 500 072

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

K SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE. K. SUBRAMANYAM, R/O. H.NO. 43 / 253 - B3, SANKAL BAGH, KURNOOL CITY - 518001

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶15

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the proceedings in CC No.671 of 2024 on the file of the Hon‟ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool and pass such

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No.671 of 2017 on the file of the Hon‟ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool and pass such

¶18

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit me to amend the prayer of the Petition in CRLP No. 774 of 2025 as Petition as "....this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the proceedings in CC No.671 of 2017on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. instead of " this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the proceedings in CC No.671 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. and pass

¶21

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to list the CRLP No. 774 of 2025 under caption “FOR BEING MENTIONED” for passing appropriate modification of the Interim Order dated 29.01.2025 passed in lA.No. 1 of 2025 in CRLP No. 774 of 2025passed by this Hon‟ble Court in the circumstances and facts as mentioned above and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶24

1.VARUN BYREDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶26

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 774 of 2025

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against her in C.C.No.671 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I.Act”).

¶31

Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is in attendance. Notice served on the Respondent No.2, none appeared.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Accused No.2, who is the wife of the Accused No.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Petitioner is facing allegations for the offence under Sections 138 of N.I Act, in C.C.No.671 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the subject cheque was issued by the Accused No.1, who is the proprietor of the M/s. Lakshmi Constructions, which was shown as Accused No.3. Simply,

¶33

because the Petitioner herein is the wife of the Accused No.1, a case has been lodged against her. The question of vicarious liability in case of property

¶34

¶35

concerned to the wife of Accused No.1 does not arise in this matter. He would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law.

¶36

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders.

¶37

As can be seen from the contents of the complaint, the only offence alleged in the present case is under Section 138 of N.I. Act. A cursory look at the subject cheque in this matter, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would show that it was allegedly issued by Accused No.1 in his personal capacity. Vicarious liability cannot be attributed against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, who is the wife of A.1. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, it is a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS. In that view continuing criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 only on the ground that she is the wife of Accused No.1 is sheer abuse of process of law.

¶38

In that view of the matter, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings pending against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.671 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶39

¶40

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

¶43

Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.11.2025. UPS

¶44

¶45

327

¶46