Attaluri Phani Venkata Gopal, Vs The State- Station House Officer

CHITALURU VENKATA PRATHYUSHA, W/O BOGARAJU SHAILENDAR SESHA RAO, AGE 31 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. H.NO. 1-5-411, LAKSHMI NAGAR, KARIMNAGAR TOWN AND DISTRICT, T.S. NOW RESIDING IN H.NO B- 201, BESIDE K.R.PURAM, SAIBABA TEMPLE, JYOTHINAG KNR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE P.S, I TOWN POLICE STATION, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

MUKKAMALLA PARTHASARADHI REDDY, S/O M.RAMALINGA REDDY, AGE 38 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, RIO. H.NO. 17/18, KALAVAKATTA STREET, OPP OLIVIA SCHOOL, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶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

¶16

SRK, J CrlP No.3675 of 2022

¶17

2

¶18

Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto call for the records relating to and in connection with complaint no C. C. No 599 of 2020 on file of Hon'ble I Additional Judicial magistrate First Class, Proddatur, and quash the same against the petitioner/Accused herein and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 grant Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accuse in connection with C. C. No. 599 of 2020 on the file of The Hon'ble I Additional Judicial magistrate First Class, Proddatur, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶22

1.V NITESH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

SRK, J CrlP No.3675 of 2022

¶27

3

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.599 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the accused, being known to the complainant through a friend, approached him and requested a hand loan for her necessities. Believing her request, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) as hand loan, and the accused promised to repay the same at the earliest. Towards discharge of the said liability, the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.000032 for Rs.8,00,000/- and 000033 for Rs.3,50,000/-, both dated 14.01.2020, drawn on HDFC Bank, Giri Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured on 21.02.2020 for the reason <funds insufficient=. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 24.01.2020 demanding payment. The accused issued a reply notice dated 10.02.2020 with false allegations but failed to repay the cheque amounts.

¶31

SRK, J CrlP No.3675 of 2022

¶32

4

¶33

Hence, the complainant filed complaint alleging commission of offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legally enforceable debt as against the petitioner herein to enable filing of the complaint. He further submitted that the cheques were issued for the purpose of security to a third person, and the said third person misused the same and issued cheques in favour of the complainant. After arguing for some time, he confined his argument to dispensing with the presence of the petitioner, and that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would represent the case. He further submits that notice has been served on the 2^nd respondent; however, none appeared on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that a perusal of the complaint goes to show that there are specific accusations as against the petitioner herein, truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided during the course of trial and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶36

SRK, J CrlP No.3675 of 2022

¶37

5

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner and permitting her counsel to represent the case on her behalf. In that connection, the petitioner is permitted to file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, Jurisdictional Court, shall consider and dispose of the said application in accordance with law, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is residing at Bangalore and is a lady, and it is difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings on day-to-day basis. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial. This Court is not inclined to go into disputed questions of fact.

¶40

For the said reasons, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court, and upon such application being filed, the jurisdictional Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶41

SRK, J CrlP No.3675 of 2022

¶42

6

¶43

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

¶44

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶45

Date:09.04.2026 JLV

¶46

SRK, J CrlP No.3675 of 2022