Disposed

Pettugalla Linga Swamy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2025CRLP/10725/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour case, relying on an alleged compromise with the defacto complainant. The complainant disputed the memorandum of understanding. The court held the document's probative value must be tested at trial and refused to quash.

What did the court decide?

Quash refused; personal attendance of petitioner before trial court dispensed with, provided he is represented by an advocate on every hearing date and appears when specifically required.

Pettugalla Linga Swamy Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10725 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pettugalla Linga Swamy, S/o. P. Bheernaiah, Aged 39 years, Occ: Business R/o. H No. 2-59, Velmakanne Village Munugode lMandal, Nalgonda Distirct -508253 And also R/o. Opp. to House No.4J-9-4O|P7, Priyadarshini Colony, Phase-11, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District - 501505.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at HYderabad

¶11

..RESP.NDENT

¶12

Sudarshi. Venkat Rao, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 48 years,Occ: Business, R/o H No. 3-9-347, Plot N. 22, Saraswathingar Colony, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District - 500074.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that i# the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the S.T.C.Nl No. 15 of 202:.3 on the file of The lVAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by acquitting the petitioner /Accused

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

;

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in the S.T.C.NI No. 15 of 2023 on the file of The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar including personnel appearance of the petitioner pending disposal of the main quash^petition

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G ALLABAKASH, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JITHENDER RAO

¶19

VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

)

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE^{TIRUMALADEVI EADA} 1

¶25

ORDER:-

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under^{Section 528 of Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita^{(BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash} the proceedings against the^{petitioner/accused in S.T.C.N.l.No.15of} 2023, pending on the file of^{the learnedlV Additio.nalMetropolitan} Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District^{at L.B.Nagar, registeredfor the} offence^punishable under Sectionl3S^{of N.l.Act.}

¶27

Heard Sri G.Allabakash,^{learned counsel forthe} petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao^{Veeramalla, the} learned Additional Public^{Prosecutor appearing for the respondent} No.1 - State.

¶28

Learned^petitioner's counsel^{has submittedthat} |he^petitioner and the defacto complainant^{havealready'enteredinto compromise} on 04.03.2024, but still the^{defactocomplainant is continuing} proceedings in the Trial Court and that^{since the compromise was} atready entered, he is^{not liable to pay any amount to the defacto} complainant n"r"in and^{hence prayed to quash the proceedings} against the^petitioner.

!--\

--.-]

ETD,I Crl.P.No.10725 2025

¶34

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the compromise deed alleged to have been executed is denied by the defacto complainant and that the petitioner herein is due to pay him towards the fulfillment of legally enforceable debt. Hence, the petition lacks merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶35

Perused the record. The STC.N|.No.1S of.2023 is pending before the Court of learned lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, under Nl Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that compromise was entered on 04.03.2024 and that the petitioner is not due to pay any amount as alleged by the defacto complainant. ln support of his contention, he has filed a copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 04 03.2024, but the respondent counsel disputes the same. Since the document itself is in dispute and the "orn."f has further expressed their intention to send the said document to Forensic Science Laboratory, the probative value of the document shall be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the attendance of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with provided that the petilioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of

¶36

¶37

ETD,J C.l.P.No-10725_2025

¶38

¶39

hearing and that he shall be^present before the Trial Court whenever

¶40

his presence is specifically required during the course of trial.

¶41

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

T.SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGIS

,/TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lV Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar}

¶48

The Station House Officer,^{Chaitanyapuri Police Station' Chaitanyapuri,} Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶49

One CC to SRI G ALLABAKASH^Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRI S VIPLAV SIMHA^{REDDYAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶52

Two CD Copies

VM/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0411112025

oRDER c RLP.No.'t0725 ol 2025

¶59

.::::ra<br>'i.
3 ('
() I 2 trC
o.
*
:r '-,! T al |l Flo t

¶60

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Pettugalla Linga Swamy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pettugalla Linga Swamy v. The State of Telangana

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

Thipparthi Rajinikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Ananthagiri Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Ravvajiya Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Yeli Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Uppada Ravi Kumar Vs State of Telengana.

Srinivas Tatipelli Vs The State of Telangana