Dismissed

Jampani Murali Chowdary, v. M.Lakshmi Narayana Rao

Telangana HC4 Apr 2013CRLP/3824/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Court held that issues of repayment malice, and multiple transactions are disputed questions of fact for trial and do not justify invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 344 of 2009 dismissed. All miscellaneous petitions closed.

Jampani Murali Chowdary, Vs M.Lakshmi Narayana Rao — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3824 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1 This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.344 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, which was filed for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶5

2 The allegations in the private complaint are as under:

¶6

3 On 26.04.2006 the petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant for his business expenses and evidencing the same the petitioner is said to have executed two promissory notes for Rs.75,000/- each in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% p.m. After repeated demands made by the complainant, the petitioner is said to have issued a cheque bearing No.346169 dated 15.12.2008 for Rs.95,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the debt. It is further stated that when the complainant presented the said cheque on 30.12.2008 in Andhra Bank, Brodipet branch, Guntur for encashment the said cheque was returned dishonoured on 13.01.2009 for the reason ‘account closed’. The same was intimated to the complainant on 19.01.2009 along with bank memo dated 19.01.2009. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a notice on 31.01.2009 demanding repayment of amount covered under the cheque. Having received the notice on 07.02.2009, the petitioner did not choose to pay anything to the complainant and even did not give any reply to the notice. Basing on these allegations, a private complaint was filed against the petitioner, which was taken on file as C.C.No.344 of 2009.

¶7

4 The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the entire amount along with interest was paid by way of cheques much

¶8

prior to the presentation of the present cheque and that the present proceedings are initiated only with a view to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that on 08.10.2006 the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.55,000/- by way of a cheque bearing No.102979 and a further sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid on 05.05.2007 by way of another cheque. It is contended that in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, the complainant did not return the promissory note and the present cheque which was given as security at the time of taking the money as loan. According to him, continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court.

¶9

5 As held by the apex Court Section 482 Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court namely, 1) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C, 2) to prevent an abuse of the process of Court or 3) to secure ends of justice. It is further held by the apex Court that the said power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously. In Sushil Suri Vs. C.B. I^[1] the apex Court held that the common thread which runs through all the decisions on the subject is that the Court would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction where the allegations made in the Complaint or Charge sheet, as the case may be, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.

¶10

6 A bare reading of the complaint will disclose that the present cheque which was issued towards repayment of the hand loan got bounced when presented and a notice to that effect was issued within the time prescribed by the statute. The complaint further reads that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not give any reply. The issues as to repayment of entire loan amount by way of cheques and that the complaint was filed with a malafide intention are aspects which have to be gone into during trial only. The material placed before the Court does not disclose as to whether this was the only

¶11

transaction between the parties or whether there were some other transactions between them. Even the complaint filed is silent on the said aspect. Be that as it may, since the issue involved in the present case being a disputed question of fact, which has to be established during trial, continuation of the proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of process of Court.

¶12

7 For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.344 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur is hereby dismissed. Consequently, all miscellaneous petitions filed along with this petition stand closed.

¶13

-----------------------------------C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶14

Date: 04.04.2013 Kvsn*

¶15

[1] 2011 (5) SCC 708

Jampani Murali Chowdary, v. M.Lakshmi Narayana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jampani Murali Chowdary, v. M.Lakshmi Narayana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Azharuddin, Vs The India Overseas Bank

Challapalli Rajasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Vudumula Srinivasula Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

S.v.L.S.Ranga Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Sam Zal Bastwaal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Mahadevan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh