Dismissed

N.Krishna Reddy, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District v. Dr.T.Ravi Kumar, Nellore District and Anr. Rep.by Pp.,Hyderabad

Telangana HC27 Aug 2018CRLP/7597/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The court held that the lack of proven legally enforceable debt and potential irregularities in cheque presentation cannot be conclusively determined at this stage, needing examination on merits.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 7597 of 2011 was dismissed.

N.Krishna Reddy, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.7 5 9 7 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed, by the petitioner, who is the accused, seeking for quash of the proceedings, in C.C.No.561 of 2009 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I.Act.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing, for the 1^st respondent as well as the counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioners submits that, as per the averments of the complaint, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,65,000/ - from the complainant on 14.03.2009 and executed a promissory note and the cheques were issued on 10.03.2009, 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009. The counsel further submits that from the above fact, it can be understood that there was no legally enforceable debt as on the date of issuance of the cheques.

¶7

The counsel for the 1^st respondent furnishes a copy of the promissory note, on the reverse of which the numbers of the three cheques allegedly issued by the accused are noted. He further submits that the accused borrowed the amounts on various dates i.e., a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on 10.03.2009;

¶8

¶9

Rs.1,65,000/ - on 12.03.2009; Rs.2 lakhs on 14.03.2009; and accepting all the above past considerations, he executed a promissory note on 14.03.2009.

¶10

Hence, in view of the above, this court opines that unless the truth of the facts is gone into, it cannot be straight away said that the cheques were not issued towards legally enforceable debt and also the contention that the fact that the cheques were presented three days after the issuance of the cheques would also throw a doubt on the case of the complainant also, cannot be gone into at this stage.

¶11

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Considering the request of the petitioner’s counsel the presence of the accused before the court below is dispensed with and the Court below is directed not to insist upon the presence of the petitioner unless it is necessary for the proceedings of the case.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶13

August 27, 2018 LMV

N.Krishna Reddy, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District v. Dr.T.Ravi Kumar, Nellore District and Anr. Rep.by Pp.,Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Krishna Reddy, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District v. Dr.T.Ravi Kumar, Nellore District and Anr. Rep.by Pp.,Hyderabad

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

Thota Suneel , Venkata Suneel, W.G.Dt and Anr., Vs the State, Sho, Mogalthur Ps., and Anr, Rep Pp.

Ullenga Anil Kumar Vs Ullenga Nirmala Jyothi

Syed Safdar Ali Vs M.A Majeed

Konda Janaiah, and 5 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Karyampudi Sesha Rao and Anr. Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P. and Anr.

Biragoni Dayanand Vs State of Ap. Repby Its Sub Inspector, and Anothers