Dismissed

Karlapudi Babu Prakash v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC10 Mar 2023CRLP/7101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashment of criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, arguing lack of enforceable debt due to conditions in a Memorandum of Understanding. The High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the agreement must be canvassed at the trial stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions dismissed for non-fulfilment of essential ingredients of Section 482 Cr.P.C.; discretion exercised against quashment.

Karlapudi Babu Prakash Vs State of Telangana and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

:ria.
k&
T.:.

¶2

[^32sl ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7100 AND 7101 oF 2022

¶8

Criminal Petition No. 7100 ol 2022: Between:

¶9

Karlapudi Babu Prakash, S/o. Deva Sahayam, Aged 65 Years, Occupation Business, Rl/o. Flat No.101, Vibhu Amruth Manor, Sai Baba Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

¶10

...PETITIONER/PETITION ER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep: By Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

Dr. Adatrow Kalyan Chakravarthy, S/o. Adatrow Gurunath Aged about 46 Years, Occupation Doctor, Rl/o. Flat No.1401, Blcok 17 LH, Lanco Hills, Near DPS School, Manikonda, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad-500089.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the Records in STC.NI No.1388 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad and quash the same.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings including Appearance of the Petitioner in STC.N|.No.1388 of 2O21 on the file of the Court of the Vth Metropolitan lVlagistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶18

Criminal Petition N( . ;'101 of 2022: Between:

¶19

Karlapudi Ba - .t Prakash, S/o. Deva Sahavam, Aged 65 Ye:rrs, Occupation. Business, Rl/r; f:lat No.101, Vibhu Amruth Manor. Sai Elaber Road, Guntur, Andhra Prade h

¶20

...PETI'I'IONE RYPETITIONER

¶21

AND

¶22

State of Telarr ta1a, rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶23

Dr. Sarada Pir;angulapati, Wo. Adatrow Kalyan Chakra'ra(hy, Aged about 41 Years, Oct; rpation. Doctor, R/o. Flat No.1401, Blcok. I7 LH, Lanco Hills, Near DPS Sc- rc,l, Manikonda, Puppalaguda, Hyderabac-ttooct8g

¶24

...RESPONDEhITS/RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Iiection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that it the circumstances stated in the Memor rrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,'.he l-1igh Court may be pleased to call ft r the Records in STC.Nl.No.1372 of 2C 1r-'t on the file of the Court of the Vth Mel ooolitan [Vlagistrate, at Nampally, Hyde'abad and quash the same on the grounc rf abuse of process of law.

¶26

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶27

Petition unde Siection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that irr the circumstances stated in the Memor rndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, t.l're l-ligh Court may be pleased to Stay ,, I t'urther Proceedings including Appeare nce c,f the petitioner in STC.N|.No.1372 tf 2021 on the file of the Court of t.rer Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, at Namgr rlly, Hyderabad pending disposal of the lluasl-r Proceedings.

¶28

These Petitior s coming on for hearing, upon perusing ttre lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume.lt!; of Sri SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU, Ac or;ate for the Petitioners and of the Additional public Prosecutor for the :; ate of Telangana on behalf of the Resp,:ndent No.1 and of Sri T. RAJNIKANTH Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶29

The Court made the, following: COMMON ORDER

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 71OO & 7101 OF 2o22

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

Both these Criminal Petitions are hled under Section 482 of the Code of Crimina.l Procedure, 7973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings against him in STC.NI.No. 1388 of 2021, registered basing on the complaint of 2,a respondent-husband in CrI.P.No.7100 of 2022, and STC.NI.No. 1372 of 2027 registered basing on the complaint of 2nd respondent-wife in Crl.P.No.7101 of 2022, pending on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against him is under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶34

Heard both the Counsel

¶35

Since the petitioner is common in both the petitions and the subject matter of the cheques pertain to one Memorandum of Understanding, both the cases are being disposed of by way of this common order. The complainants in both the criminal petitions a.re husband and wife, who filed separate cases against petitioner herein.

,..

i i I i

STC.lt .lto.1388 of 2021 was filed by D:.r\datrorv Kalyan Chakravartt, a,d STC.No.l372 of 2O2I was til::d by his wife I)r.Sarada^r: szLngulapati against the l)etitjcrrcr herein for dishonourin: r:f 1wo chcques for Rs.2O,00,000/- r:zr:-r is;sued by the petitioner, c; e in favour of Dr.A.Kalyan Chakrav:rrrhv and one in favou r of his vile Dr.Sarada.

¶41

r\ccor ling to the complaints, a U.ernor andum of Understanrli-- q jt 16.o2-2o18 was entered into betrv:e.n the petitioner and 2n, res ,o rdent/complainant in both the cr.:.ninal petitions rcgarding a I .lt ol property and an amount oj-4O lzrl< ts was paid by the husl;and tr-d wife. The petitioner issued two c:.t(:quos for Rs.20 lakhs each t: w rrds security. According to the <.onr:, fairLants, since the registrati,. 1 of the land was not done, the comp l:Linants made a request to re: trn the amount for which reason, th : ,rccused asked the complainr; 1t s to present the cheques for clearal,:,:. f,ccordingly, the cheques r\ sre presented by the complainants anc[ we -e returned unpaid f<rr thr: r.ason of insufficient funds. A k:gal nct Lce was issued calling u pon i hr: petitioner to pay the amou. t cov€r.ed under two cheques i.e.2C lakhs, each. However, without paying Jt,: s:rid amount covererl bv th, creques. a reply notice was issrred br,hc petitioner.

¶42

¶43

¶44

Aggrieved by non-payment of the amount covered by cheques both husband and wife hled separate complaints.

¶45

The main ground on which the petitioner/ accused is seeking quashing of the proceedings is the agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated l6.O2.20la, which was entered into for purchase of property. In the said Memorandum of Understanding it was mentioned at clause-6 as follows;

¶46

"In assurance of safety and securitg the first party K.Bobu Prakash has to lssue Promissory Notes and. Bank Cheques to the second partA Dr.Kalyoru Chakrouarthy and Dr.Saro.da for the poyment of Rs.4O lakhs (fortg lokhs) as aduance. If the first party fails^{to register the land afier the registrationbg the Church, the} second portA is at liberty to produce tLe cheques at the bank and claim for uthich the fi.rst partg is also liable for ciuil and criminal pro ce dure s and p enaltie s. "

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the Church had not registered the land in favour of the petitioner, as such, question of the petitioner registering any piece of land in favour of the complainants does not arise. There would be a legaliy enforceable debt on the said cheques, only in the event of the Church registering the land in lavour of the petitioner and the petitioner not

¶48

<br>

¶49

¶50

registering i^-r the name of the complainanLs. TL t: said agree ment condition wi s ar:cepted by the compiainarlts. Houl),er, the cheques given towarr: s lecurity were presented for clearance. I{aving agreed to get land rcg:;t':rr:d after the Church registers in his favour, both the complainan ; erred in presenting the chequt:r; anrl filing the complaint.^- h,:rr: is no legall)' enforceable debt r,n the cheques presented. F r the said reason, proceedings have to llr: qtrashecl.

¶51

On tl.: other hand learned counscl a[rl)()aring for the complainantl viould submit that no land u,as regist€ red in favour of the complairr rr ts, as such, t.he amounts werc aske cl to be returned. for u'hich rezr ion 1-he petitioner asked the comprainanl s tc, present the cheques. I{c ',ever, since thc cheques were returnr:d unpaid, the complainant- have the right to prosecute the ltetittcrtr:r L.erein under Section 138 : f -hr: Negotiable Instrument Act. Accolrlingly, prayed to dismiss the g, tition.

¶52

The M, rr.orandum of Understanding dt. 15.t)2.2111g is not disputed. It i: t1e case of the complainalts that till 1tS.l2.2O2O, tne complainants hird u,aited for the land to be registere (t an(i ultimately whcn askr:cl l)r the return of the amount, tlte ac,;_lsecl asked the

I I

I I

complainants to present the cheques and ensured availability of funds

¶57

i0. The ground raised by the petitioner/accused is that there is no enforceable debt for the reason of the complainalts accepting the condition that registration of the land wouid be done only after the Church registers the land in his favour, was agreed upon. However, the agreement was entered into on 16.O2.2018 and having waited for nearly two years nine months, the amount was sought to be returned. The complaina,nts cannot eternally wait for the registration of the land and sought return of the amount given to the accused / petitioner to return the same. Though, there is no time limit which is prescribed in the Memoraldum of Understanding, when according to the complainants, the petitioner/accused had consented to present the cheques and undertook to return the amount, it cannot be said that the presentation of the cheques is contrary to the agreement and there is no legally enforceable debt.

¶58

The said contention that there is no IegalIy enforceable debt on the cheques, can be agitated before the tria-l Court. The petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also produce the documents in support of his defence. The basic ingredients of

¶59

ti.:d

¶60

¶61

Section 138 o{ the Negotiable Instrumet Act have bt:en fulfilled with respect to 1. Le presentation of cheques by issuin3 notice and also hling the cr: nclaint in time. The signature on LtLr: cheques is not disputed. H( $rever, the dispute is with respect to the r:onditions in the Memorar d rm of Understanding.

¶62

This^(. rt rt under Section 482 of the CI.P.C. r::rnnot determine disputed qur s{ions of fact. This Court deems it ap5r-qp1ia16 that the said conten ons raised by the petitioner can be a5;:tatr:d before the trial Court.'l ht:re are no grounds to quash the proc:e.Cings.

¶63

Accor,, ingly, both the Criminal Petitions a,re dis.nissed

¶64

Misce aleous Petitions, penqilg if any, shall s,1.anct ql,o_-se-d.

¶65

SRI MOHD" SANA,ULLAH ANSARI ASSII;TA.NT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPYtr .i) SE,CTIbN OFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67

The Vth Metr >politan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶68

One CC to S Rl SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU, Advocate [()F,UC

¶69

One CC to S tl T. RAJNIKANTH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CD Cof, :s

I I l;

HIGH COUF

DATED:10l0tll2023

ORDER

CRLP.Nos.T 100 &7101 of 2022

¶77

/4.
/4-
// /_, ili iE s l7\ ; 4'
/,/ ,,,1*
/,';l
r-i
t] 3 HIY 2[Z]
ti.,
' .:.'. ,2

¶78

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONIS WITHOUT C()STS

¶79

/,
7

Karlapudi Babu Prakash v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karlapudi Babu Prakash v. 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

Tunuguntla Naresh Kumar , Kumar Shp Veera Narayana Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Tunuguntla Naresh Kumar , Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Tunuguntla Naresh Kumar , Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Amgoth Raju Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Gottipati Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Karlapudi Babu Prakash Vs State of Telangana and another