Dismissed

B. Balraj Goud v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC12 Nov 2021CRLP/1802/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings for an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act involving a cheque dated 2017. The court held that since no evidence showed the cheque was part of a prior 2012 civil suit, the complaint was valid, and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings against the accused was dismissed.

B. Balraj Goud Vs The State of Telangana and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWELFTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO.THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶5

GRIMINAL PETITION^{NO:1802OF 2020}

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Balrai Goud, S/o^{B LingaimaiahGoud' Aged about 58 years' R/o H No l-8-3-} 27 17 t 4. ChikkadPallY^HYderabad

¶8

,..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of^{Telangana , Repby the Public Prosecutor'HighCourt at} Hyderabad.

¶11

erabad Reo bv its^{GPA holder and}

¶12

2 tvl/s Shriram Citv^{Union Finance Limiled' Hyd} S7o C. Coveridhan^{Aged about 40} Altnoiii"t Slqn'atorv^{Sri G. Naveen Chandra} vJdrs-,^{nyo Hifi ayattinagar,Hyderabad}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT

¶14

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr'P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the Memorandum^{of crounos oicriminat Fetitlon' the High coYl T3y be pleased} to^quash the^{proceeding.ag"inst the Petitioner/Accusedin C C No 159 of 2019on} the file of Hon'ble^{vr sp""iliiliagiti"t",i""Manzil at Hyderabadin the interest of} justice .

¶15

l.A. NO:¹ OF²⁰²⁰

¶16

PetitionunderSectlon4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the Memorandum^{of Crorna.li Criminal'Peiitio;,theHiqh Court may be pleased} to stay all^{furtherproceeOi"g;unri.it the Petitioner/A"cutEd in C.C.No,159 of 2019} on the file of^{Hon'ble vl b';;";M;gist'ut"' Erra Manzilat Hyderabad'pending} disposal^{of the above CriminalPetition}

¶17

t.A. NO :1OF²⁰²¹

¶18

Petition under^{Section 482 ol Cr'P 'C praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum^{of Cror"O.1iCriminal'Peiitio;,theHiqh Court may be pleased} to extend^{the interim oroeiJaLo1i-os-zozopassed 1n-CRLP No 18o2 oI 2020'} in the interest^of .iustice

¶19

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of^{Criminalpetiion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K} MUKHEED ,Advocate^{for the Petitionerand the Assistant Public Prosecutoron} behalf of^{the Respondent Nol and of Sri N' SRIKANTHGOUD' Advocatefor the} Respondent^No.2

¶20

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEMAKTHER} CRIMI AL PETITIO N No.18O2 O 2020

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Pefition, under Section^{482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure, 1973^{(for short, 'Cr.P,C.'), is filed by the} petitioner/accused seeking to^quash the^{proceedings against him in} C.C.No.159 of 2019 on^{the file of VI Special Magistrate, Erramanzil,} at Hyderabad, registered for the^{offence under Section 138 of} Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881^{(for short "N.I.Act").}

¶25

Heard the submlssions oF Sri^{M.A.K.Mukheed,learned} counsel for the^{petitioner/accused,} the^{learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor representing the respondent^{No.1/State,Sri N.Srikanth} Goud, learned counsel for the respondent^No.2/defacto complainant and^perused the record.

¶26

The learned counsel for the^{petitioner/accused} would^submit the subject cheque was^given as a security in^respect of^loan transactions in between the^parties to the litigation in the^year 2011 but not on 27.06.20L7 as alleged in the subject C.C.No.159 of 2019 pending on the file of VI Special Magistrate,^{Erramanzil, at} Hyderabad. It is further submitted that in the^year 2012, a civil^suit was filed, wherein the subject cheque was referred. After^passage of almost a decade, a false complaint is brought into existence against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and proceeded with. It is contended that without there being dny material, continuation of proceedings against the

¶27

¶28

petitioner/accused in the subject C.C is nothing but^abuseof process of law and ultimately^prayed to allow^{the Criminal Petition} as^prayed for.

¶29

On the other hand, the^{learned counselfor the respondent} No.2/de facfo complainant^{would submit that the petitioner/} accused gave the subject^{cheque No.747637 dated 27.06.2017} towards discharge of legally^{enforceabledebt. Itis further} submitted that when^{the subject cheque was presentedfor} realization, it was^{returned on 21.09.2017with an endorsement} "Account Blocked". After issuance of notice to^{the petitioner/} accused, the subject^{compiaintwas lodged by the respondent} No.2/de Facto complainant^{within the stipulated time' It is also} submitted that the^{petitioner/accused has admitted his signature} on the subject^{cheque. It is submitted that the subjectcheque} No'T4T63TWasnotatallreferredinthecivilSuitfiledintheyear 2012, and ultimately^{prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition'}

¶30

The learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the State} supported the arguments^{advancedon behalf of the respondent} No.2/defactocompIainantandSubmittedthatthereissufficient materialtoproceedagainStthepetitioner/accusedfortheoffence Undersectionl38ofN.i.Actandultimate|yprayedtodismissthe Criminal Petition.

¶31

In view of the above^{submissions, the point for determination} in this Criminal^Petitionis:

¶32

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in C.C.No.759 of 2O79 on the file of VI Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, at Hyderabad, are liable to be quashed?"

¶33

POINT: As seen from the material placed on record, the disputed cheque is dated 27.06.2017, bearing No.747637, drawn on Andhra Bank, Chikkadpally Branch, Hyderabad, for an amount of Rs.39,60,00,000/-. There is also return memo dated ZL.Og.2Ol7 to substantiate the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.2/de facfo complainant. Though it has been contended by the petitioner/accused that the subject cheque was referred in a civil suit filed in the year 2012, no document has been filed before this Court to establish that the disputed cheque dated 27.06.2017 was referred in 2012 itself. The allegations made against the petitioner/accused in the subject private complaint are that he gave the cheque dated 27.06.20L7 to the respondent No.2/de facto complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and when it was presented for realization, the same was returned on 21.09.2017 with an endorsement..Account Blocked,,. The respondent No.2/ de facto complainant after issuing legal notice, filed the subject complaint against the petitioner/accused within the stipulated time. Therefore, it cannot be said that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused in the subiect C.C for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, is abuse of process of law. It is pertinent to state that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.p.C., can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case, either to prevent the abuse of the

¶34

¶35

process of any^{Courtor otherwiseto securethe ends of justiceln} the instant^{case, none of the circumstancesmentioned abovedo} exist for^{quashingthe proceedings againstthe petitioner/accused} in the subject^{Calendar Case' Therefore'it is not a fit case to} accede the^{requestof the petitione r/accused as prayed for' This} Criminal^{petitionis devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed'}

¶36

B Accordingly,^{this Criminal Petitionis dismissed'}

¶37

Miscellaneous^{petitlons,ifany, pending in this Criminal}

¶38

Petition shall^standclosed'

¶39

//TRUE^COPY// ^38{;i^"lYiE8['+'iil\ --/'..SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To, 1. The^{Vl Special Magistrate'Erra Manzil at Hyderabad'}

¶41

The^{lX Additional cnief trletropotitan Magistrate'at Hyderabad'}

¶42

The^{Station House Officer' Narayanaguda Police Station ' Hyderabad'} Fublic^{Prosecutor' Hish court ror the stateor relansana'}

¶43

'^{:Ifir9.ni""ti3i,tii'}

¶44

One^{CC to SRI' M A K MUKHEED Advocate IOPUCI}

¶45

One^{CC to SRI' N' SRIKANTH GOUD'Advocate IOPUCI}

¶46

Two <sup>CD V^CoPies

CDL

HIGH COURT

DRSAJ

DATED:1211112021

ORDER

CRLP.No.1802 of 2020

IHe s r.q 16: <br>e
d oE DEczoat o
t)ts P

¶54

DISMISSING THE CRI\lINAL PETITION

¶55

.r\ (.

B. Balraj Goud v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Balraj Goud v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Rohith Thumma and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt. Dasu Chandravathi, Vs The Station House Officer

Smt. I.Ramadevi Vs Sunil Bajaj

Ammarajula Rajeswar Vs The State of Telangana

Teggula Vikram Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sadia Sultana and 3 others Vs Sri Mohd. Hafeezuddin and another