Dismissed

Adike Purushottam v. Jitender Mohite and Another

Telangana HC25 Jul 2022CRLP/1430/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana refused to quash criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that genuine disputes exist regarding whether the petitioner borrowed money from the complainant or a third party. Consequently, the matter requires a full-fledged trial rather than quashing. (Quality: thin due to OCR errors in text).

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the case under Section 138 NI Act is dismissed.

Adike Purushottam Vs Jitender Mohite and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

il/ONDAY ,THE TWENry FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1430 OF 2016

¶6

Between;

¶7

Adike Purushottam, S/o A. Narsimha R/o 9-1-30/'1, Laxmiguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ... P ETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

¶8

Jitender Mohite , S/o Late IVI Gopal Rao. Age +4yearc, Occ: Business r/o 5- 3-29211 , Goshamahal Hyderabad-12 .. 1"' Respondent / Complainant

¶9

E ,^{2. The State of Telangana., rep. by its PublicProsecutor,High Court of} Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Teldngana

¶10

..2Nd RESPoNDENT/ State

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Couft may be pleased to cail for records C C. No.1 85 of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble VIII Mekopolitan [/agistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, and quash the same against the petitioner as it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and do not aftract the ingredients of alleged offence.

¶12

Crl.M.P.No. 1356 of 2016:

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grouncis of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 185 of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Vlll Metr.opolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District , pending disposal of Crl.Petition in the interest of^justice

¶14

CRLPMP. NO: 11885 OF 2016

¶15

Between:

¶16

Jitender Mohite , S/o l_ate l\4. Gopal Rao, Age 44 years, Occ: Business rto 5-3-29211, Goshamahal. Hyderabad-12 .. Petitioner / Respondent / Respondent

¶17

And

¶18

'1. Adike Purushottam S/o A. Narsimha R/o 9-1-3011, Laxmiguda Village, Rajendernagar Vlandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict .. RespondenU^petitioner / Petitioner

¶19

The State of^'felangana., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad lbr the State of Telangana .. Respondent / RespondenURespondent

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvl:morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pJeased to vacate the interim stay granted by thiS Hon'ble Court dated 8-2-2016 pasqed in CRL P.tr/.P.No. 1356 of 2015 in CRL.P.No.1430 of 20l5 in the interest of^justice.

¶21

This Petition <;oming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. MALATHI NAIDU ,Advocate for the Petitioner, and of the Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2, None appeared for the Respondent for Rl

¶22

The Court made he following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.143O OF 2016

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The accused in C.C.No.185 of 2015 on the fiie of the^VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rarga Redy has filed this^{petition to} quash the case against him, which was taken cognizance^for the oflence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments^Act (for short, "the Act").

¶28

The facts as can be seen from the complaint^{are as under:}

¶29

The respondent/complainant has filed the^complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned^Magistrate alleging that the petitioner/accused, who is known to^{him, has} requested him to lend an amount of Rs.6 lakhs^{for his personal} requirement for which he has agreed to^{repay the said amount} along with Rs.50,0OO/- within sk months.^{As a security,he} has submitted registered sale deed i.e., original^documents belonging to Piot No.152 in Sy.Nos.3O and^{3O/AA admeasuring} 200 square yards situated at Brundavan Colony,^Laxmiguda Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, and in case if^he fails to^repay the debt of Rs.6 lakhs, he would offer the said^plot to the^de-

¶30

¶31

lacto complainant. The petitioner has executed a pro_note for a sum ol'Rs.6 lakhs on 03.09.2014 and issued postdated cheque for Rs.3 lakhs dated 03.03.2015 and alother cheque for Rs.3 lakhs dated 10.03.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, Kattedan Branch.

¶32

tr'hen the respondent/complainant has presented the said cheques in the bank, both of them were returned dishonoured on 1Cr.03.2015 and 17.03.201S respectively with an endorserment "funds insufficient,,. The respondent/complainant has issrred legal notice on 22.03.2015 by speed post and the sarre w,1s received by the petitioner on 06.04.20r5 and that as the petitioner has not paid the amount, the present complaint is filed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.185 of 2015 on the followinl; grounds:

¶33

Th: respondent/ complainant rs a stranger to the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of plot No. i 52 in Sy.Nos.30 and 3O/AA admeasuring 200 square yards situated at BrunCavan Colony, Laxmiguda Village of Rajendranagar Mandal It is stated that the petitioner/accused has mortgaged

¶34

¶35

¶36

the said plot to one Srinivas, who is not a party to this petition, under registered mortgage deed vide document bearing No.743/2OO4, dated 07.O3.2Ol1 for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs by depositing the original title deed as a securit;r. Subsequently, he has repaid the entire amount and thereby the said Srinivas has executed re-conveyance deed vide document bearing No.3785 of 2014 dated 04.06.2014.

¶37

However, on account of exigency, the petitioner has again borrowed Rs. 1 lakh from the said Srinivas and executed a simple mortgage deed bearing No.3786 of 2Ol4 on the very same day i.e., on 04.06.2014. When the re-conveyance deed was executed, the petitioner has also issued four blank cheques bearing Nos.204667, 204668, 204670 and 20467L as securilr, which were mentioned in the simple mortgage deed, and also he has given four blank promissory notes to the said Srinivas. The said Srinivas has also written the same in tJle original mortgage deed as security.

¶38

respondent/ complainant the petitioner has approached the Srinica.s, with whom he has deposited the original tifle deed

¶39

¶40

¶41

and has given blank cheques and pro_notes, informed about the legal notice got issued by the respondent/complainant for which the said Srinivas also surprised and stated that the chequr:s, promotes etc., might have lost while he was traveling or sorre of his close family members might have stolen those documents. Therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitiorrer that the respondent is stranger arld the petitioner has not borrowed any money from him and prayed the Court to allou, the petition.

¶42

B H:ard both sides and perused the record.

¶43

Nou,, the point for consideration 1S whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.lg5 of 20 15 can be quashecl?

¶44

It is the case of the respondent/complainant that he has advanced Rs.6 lakhs to the petitioner and as a security, he has given the title deeds of immovable property in respect of plot No.152 iind also issued two cheques for Rs.3 lakhs each and that u,hen both of them have submitted in the bank, they rvere

¶45

¶46

¶47

dishonoured and thereby, he has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶48

On the other hand, the petitioner's contention is that the respondent is a stranger to him, he has borrowed Rs.3 lakhs from one Srinivas and subsequenfly, he has paid Rs.6 lakhs and the said Srinivas also got executed re-conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. However, he has again borrowed Rs.1 lakh from the said Srinivas arrd executed one more simple registered mortgage deed and at that time he has given four blank cheques and four pro-notes and those blank pro-notes and cheques were used by the respondent/complainant, including the original title deed and filed false complaint.

¶49

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C., to quash the proceedings. Therefore, it is to be examined whether basing on the rival contentions mentioned above, can this petition be allowed. -/--

-/-t)

I 4

1C 1-)_ In State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and

¶54

othersr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the following

¶55

guidelir.es

¶56

:1.) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or ll,:..:..T{Tll^{.venif.they are taken at theirfacevalueand accepted} rn Lher entrety do Ilot prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶57

(b) . where the allegations in the First Information Report and other Ttenal:,^{if any, accompanyingthe F.l.R. do not disctose a coguizabte} o irnce, j ustifying an investigation by police officers under Section 15ri(1) of jle Cgae except under a., o.d., of a Magistrate within the pu ruiew of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶58

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or cornplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and'make out a case against the accused;

¶59

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable :^ff:-l::^{9]],,"?rstitute.only-a non-cognizable offence, no investigation} rs l)ermitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrite as cor:,templated under Section 1SS(2) of the Code;

¶60

(:) -^whe_re lhe^{allegations madein the FIR or complaint} are^so absurd and inherently improbable on tJ-e basis "f *h;;; no prudent p:_.:o,l :.1..u..^{reacha just} conclusion that there is sufhcient ground ror proceedmg against the accused;

¶61

!0 .^{. where} thele is^{an express legalbar engraftedin any of the} provrslons ol tire Code or the concerned Act (under rvhich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the pro:eedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or lfg^{congerngaAct,providing efficacious redress for the grievance} of rne aggneved party;

¶62

k) 1vlere^{a criminalproceedingis manifestlyattendedrvith} mala fi.de^arr d/or where the proceeding is maticiousiy instituted *itt un ulterior motive for wreaking vengearce on the accuscd ard urith a vievr S spite him due to private and pcrsonal grudge.6

'^{AIR 1992s,l604}

If the case filed by the respondent/complainant falls in any one of the above guidelines, then this Court can consider quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent.

¶68

Basing on the rival contentions, the facts, which are required to be proved are: whether the petitioner and the respondent are known to each other, whether the respondent/complainant has advanced Rs.6 lakhs for which the petitioner has given two cheques and two pro-notes and whether the petitioner has deposited the original title deed with the respondent and other connected aspects. Admittedly, the original document belongs to the petitioner and the original cheques duly signed by the petitioner are with the respondent/ complainant.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the mortgage deed in respect of Rs.l lakh executed by the petitioner in favour of the Srinivas, there is a mention about the blank cheques. According to the petitioner, he has not given any cheques to the respondent, but, those cheques were given by the petitioner in favour of the Srinivas only-

¶70

( {

¶71

¶72

It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant is not a party to the mortgage deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the Srinivas, wherein there is a mention about giving of blank cheques to the said Srinivas. Therefore, as long as the respondent/complainant is not a party to those proceedings, even if there is a mentioned about giving of blank cheques by the petitioner to the respondent, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not borrowed money from the respondent/complainant. There can be a situation where the respondent has advanced money to the petitioner under pro_ notes a:rd the petitioner also could have given the cheques to respondent. Therefore, these are all the issues which have to be settled by the trial Court.

¶73

Therefore, considering the rival contentions, it is clear that the issues involved here can be settled after full_fledged trial and on considering the oral and documenta4r evidence filed before ttre trial Court, the trial Court will certainly come to the conr:lusion as to whose version is correct. Until then, this Court certainly cannot interfere. Therefore, it is not a fit case which czLn be quashed under Section 482 Cr.p.C.,

¶74

¶75

¶76

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶77

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stald closed.

¶78

¶79

i/TRUE COPYI/

¶80

SD/.,'l.NAGA LAISHMI DEPUW REGI$TiRAR E/

¶81

SECTION OFFICER

¶82

To,

¶83

The VIll [Vletropolitan Magistrate , Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana (OUT)

¶84

One CC to SRl. N NIALATHI NATDU Advocate [OPUC]

¶85

One CC to SRl. D. SRINIVAS PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

Two CD Copies

¶87

*6.^{One Spare Copy} -k-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510712022

ORDER

:t\ { E T;1 t.
<)
,IW
2X SEP
P-:I:

¶94

CRLP.No.1430 of 2016

¶95

DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION.

¶96

e q. )9'

Adike Purushottam v. Jitender Mohite and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adike Purushottam v. Jitender Mohite and Another

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

Elkapalli Sampath Vs The State of Telangana

Jahangir , Shaik Jahangeer Vs The State of Telangana

S.Sripal Reddy and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Rao Rajesh Vs the State of Telangana

Christine Noerla Rani Vs State of Telangana Rep by P.P

Sri.Praveen Cherukumalli Vs The State of Telangana