Dismissed

M.Sujana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Aug 2014CRLP/1871/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Ruling that quash petitions must rely on complaint allegations rather than evidence, the Court held that since the complaint alleged the accused issued the cheque requiring investigation, the petition failed.

What did the court decide?

The quash petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within six months.

M.Sujana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1871 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.14 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶5

2. Heard both sides.

¶6

3. Present petitioner is A2 in the above referred STC for an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The main contention of Advocate for the petitioner is that petitioner has not signed the cheque though the account is a joint account. He submitted that only her husband signed the cheque and A2 i.e., wife has not signed and even the same is admitted in the plaint, which is filed for recovery of the entire amount. He submitted as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aparna A.Shah V.

¶7

Sheth Developers Pvt Ltd. and anothe r^[1] , wherein, it was held that wife, who has not signed the cheque though joint account holder was held not liable for punishment under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, in view of the said judgment (supra), the present petition has to be quashed.

¶8

4. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that case, the appellant therein was

¶9

convicted though the evidence on record disclose that appellant has not signed the cheque and only husband signed the cheque relating to a joint account. But here, it is a petition under Section 482, where this Court has to go by allegations in the complaint, but cannot weigh the evidence.

¶10

5. As per the complaint allegations in the complainant, the accused have issued disputed cheque bearing No.122836, dated 10-10-2008 for Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakhs only) drawn on HDFC bank, Tirupati on their joint account. As seen from the complaint, it appears that legal notice was also issued before filing the complaint to both the accused and it is not known whether any reply is given for the said notice. But when the allegations in the complaint are to the effect that accused have issued the cheque, at this stage, it cannot be decided as to who issued the cheque. Further, along with 138 of N.I Act offence of 420 is also averred in the complaint. Therefore, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided at this stage and it requires a full pledged enquiry.

¶11

6. For these reasons, the quash petition is dismissed. Since STC is of the year 2010, the trial Court is directed to dispose the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any filed in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶13

___________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J

¶14

Date: 01.08.2014. gvl

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1871 of 2012 Date: 01.08.2014

¶17

Gvl

¶18

[1] 2013(2) ALD (Crl.)1023(SC)

M.Sujana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sujana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Padmasale Ranganna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunchala Sudarshan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Veeriah (A4) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanjay kumar , I.a.S., Vs State of Ap., Thr Sho., Ps Ghatkesar Cyberabad

Mrs. Rajni Mathur Vs The State of A.P.

Mudunuri Ramaraju Vs State of A.P.