HC rejected CrPC challenging FIR for cheating and cheating emission of cheque. Judge held insufficient ground to quash FIR due to Section 138 notice content.
CrPC No.6169 of 2012 dismissed; investigation allowed to proceed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA
GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6169 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner having obtained Rs.20,00,000/- in connection with sale of Ac.2.04 guntas of land in Vatte Nagulapally village and executing receipt-cum-undertaking dated 28.10.2010, did not deliver the property to the complainant/2nd respondent and that instead gave a cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- and executed a receipt-cumundertaking and giving assurance that the cheque will be honoured on its presentation and that the said cheque when presented for encashment, bounced for ‘insufficient funds’ in the account of the accused. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the notice issued by the complainant two days prior to this complaint, there are no allegations of deception. That notice was a statutory notice issued under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was not a notice
issued generally claiming all the reliefs and making all the allegations. That cannot be a ground for dismissal of this F.I.R. for the above offences. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with investigation of this case at its threshold.
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 17h August, 2012 PNV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the CrPC petition ought to be dismissed solely because the statutory notice under Section 138 NI Act did not contain specific allegations of deception.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the investigation at the threshold stage.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Criminal Petitioner
Complainant
2nd Respondent
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
