Mrs. Meharunnisa Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³³⁰³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'16182 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Mrs. Meharunnisa, Wo lttlr. Mohammed Sabah Khan, Aged about 46^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.14-3-172, Jaya Nagar Road N0.18 Ballepalle, Khammam District, Telangana State-507002

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

I The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature for State of Telangana At Hyderabad

¶12

2 Mr. Mohammed Naimuddin, S/o. Mohammed Habeebuddin. Age. 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.16-2-74118,14411, Asmangadh, Near T.V. Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶13

...Respondents/Com plainants

¶14

Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ftilemorandum of Grounds of Crrmrnal Petitron, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petrtioner/ accused N0.3, in STC.NI No.6787 of 2025 on the file of lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courl may be pleased to stay all further proceedings relating to STC.Nl.No.6787 oI 2024 on the file of lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MD.IRFAN

¶18

KHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithenct. Rao Veeramalla Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond r )l No. 1 , and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I I l I I

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE O}- TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16182 of 2025

Date: 08.12.2025

Between:

Mrs.Meharunnisa

..Petitioner

AND

The State ofTelangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Coun of Judicature for the State of Telangana and another

¶30

..respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the

¶33

petitioneriaccused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in STC.NI.No.6787 of 2024 on the file of the leamed IX

¶34

Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

¶35

Heard Mr.Md.Irfan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for

¶37

respondent No. 1 .

¶38

2

¶39

i. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits th:: the petitioner has not comnritted any oflence and that she was 1al ely implicated in the present crime . Even according to the allegatrl rs r-nade in the cornplaint, thc alleged cheque dated 05.08.2024 rvr issued b;'' the husband of the petitioner, namely Mr. Mohd. Sabal Khan. Hence, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Ir itruments Act, I 8 8 I , arc not attracted against the petitioner. He tl r lher submitted that respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner a; accused No.3 only on thc ground that she is a signatory along r.r i h her husband to the Investment Loan Agreernent. Respondent N: 2, pulsuant to the Investment Loan Agreement dated 16.09.2011 . invested an amount ol Rs. 15,00,000/-. Even as per the lnr lstment Loan Agreernent, respondent No.2 had taken full respo r ;ibility tbr the accounts pertaining to M/s. Fresco Grillicious and :^-oasted. If any amount is due and payable pursuant to the Inr Jstment Loan Agreement, respondent No.2 ought to have iL1 proached the competent Civil Court to establish his claim. The rlleged cheque was not issued in respect of a legally enforceabl: debt, and the petitioner is not a signatory to the said cheqrr Hence, the ingred lents oI\Section 138 of the NI Act are not lri le out against

¶40

3

¶41

the petitioner, and the continuation of proceedings against her amounts to a clear abuse of process of law, and the same^{is liable to} be quashed.

¶42

Having considered the rival submissions made by^the leamed counsel for the petitioner, including the cheque bearing No.000048 drawn on 05.08.2024 at HDFC^{Bank, Dilsukhnagar} Branch, Hyderabad, it reveals that the husband of the^petitioner signed the cheque as an authorised signatory on behalf of^iWs. Fresco Grillicious and Broasted. Respondent No.2 filed^the complaint against M/s. Fresco Grillicious and^{Broasted,as wellas} Mr. Md. Sabah Khan, rvho is the Managing^Partner of^{the said} partnership firm, and the petitioner. Respondent No.2, in his complaint, specifically mentioned the^role of^{the petitionerand also} made allegations pertaining to the^{partnershipfirm. Whether the} cheque was issued by the Managing^{Partnerol the firm in respect} of a legally enforceable debt or^{not is a disputed question of fact,} which has to be adjudicated and decided by the^trial Cou(^{after a} full-fledged trial. Hence, this Court does^{not find any groundto} quash the proceedings against the petitioner