Allowed

C.Raghuram Prasad, Visakhaptnam., v. Gic Housing Finance Ltd., Mubai and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC10 Oct 2018CRLP/4106/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act filed by Smt Justice T. Rajani. The prosecution failed to maintain nexus between cheque numbers listed in the complaint and the exhibits filed, warranting termination of the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.170 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Visakha

C.Raghuram Prasad, Visakhaptnam., Vs Gic Housing Finance… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4106 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.170 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the accused approached the de facto complainant Bank for housing loan and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, for which the accused executed relevant documents and also created equitable mortgage of his property. The accused in due discharge of his outstanding amounts under two loans, has duly signed and issued a cheque bearing No.011040 on 30.09.2007 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam, for Rs.4,50,000/-. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured. Later, on receiving the notice issued by the de facto complainant Bank, the accused approached the de facto complainant Bank and asked the Bank officials not to take any action with regard to dishonour of said cheque and he issued two more cheques bearing No.011283 for Rs.75,000/- on 17.11.2007 and cheque bearing No.011284 for Rs.3,75,000/- on 30.11.2007, both cheques drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam. The de facto complainant deposited a cheque, dated 17.11.2007, in its account with HDFC Bank and the same was enchased. Later, when the de facto complainant deposited the cheque bearing No.011284 in its account at HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam Branch for encashment,

¶6

¶7

the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “Insufficient funds” and the same was communicated to the accused.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner now is that the cheques pertaining to the cheque numbers mentioned in the complaint are not filed along with the complaint. The cheque filed along with the complaint is dated 30.09.2007 bearing No.011080, which does not correspond with any of the cheque numbers mentioned in the complaint. He also draws the attention of this Court to the list of documents mentioned in the complaint, wherein document No.2 is lawyer’s notice issued in respect of cheque bearing No.011280 for Rs.4,50,000/- and document No.5 is cheque bearing No.011284, drawn on Pubjan and Sindh Bank, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

Absolutely there seems to be no nexus between the cheque numbers mentioned in the compliant and the cheques filed along with the complaint. Hence, in view of the above, this Court finds that the further proceedings against this petitioner cannot be continued and need to be quashed.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.170 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Visakhapatnam.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

T. RAJANI, J

OCTOBER 10, 2018

YVL

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4106 of 2013

¶18

Date:10.10.2018

C.Raghuram Prasad, Visakhaptnam., v. Gic Housing Finance Ltd., Mubai and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Raghuram Prasad, Visakhaptnam., v. Gic Housing Finance Ltd., Mubai and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baddepudi Bhanu Prakash Reddy Vs Andalamala Kanakamma and Anothers

K.v.Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Sri G.Narayan Rao, Guntur Dt., Vs State of Ap., Pp., High Court.

Mahesh Kumar Nirwan Vs the State of Ap., and Another

Bojja Sreenivasulu and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Vega Shailaja and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another