Dismissed

Neovel Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jun 2025CRLP/6400/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused in a cheque dishonour case sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS, claiming the disputed cheque was issued to a third party and misused by the complainant. The Court held this was a matter of defence for trial; since the cheque bears admitted signatures of the directors, no grounds existed to admit the petition, which was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Criminal Petition dismissed and miscellaneous applications closed.

Neovel Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6400 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Neovel Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Directors Mrs. Chaikam Sujatha And Dr.Chaikam Venkata Ramana Reddy r/o Flat no.701, Block B, Vertex Sadguru Krupa, Nizampet road, Hydernagar, Hyderabad -90

¶8

Mrs. Chaikam Sujatha, Wo Dr. Chaikam Venkata Ramana Reddy occ. Director r/o Flat no.701, Block B, Vertex Sadguru Krupa, Nizampet road, Hydernagar, Hyderabad -90

¶9

Dr. Chaikam Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Chaikam Seetarami Reddy Occ Director r/o Flat no.701, Block B, Vertex Sadguru Krupa, Nizampet road, Hydernagar, Hyderabad -90

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. through its Public Prosecutor, High Court, At Hyderabad.

¶13

No'1

¶14

2 smt. Parvatham Anjamma, wo Parvatham srtyrn"r"yrXSsPoNDENT about 45 years occ Business r/o Flat no.704, F-Block, Vertex Sadguru Krupa, Nizampet Road' Hydernagar' Hyderab.adESpoNDENT

¶15

No.2/coMpLArNANT

¶16

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 quash the Proceedingsⁱⁿ STC Nl No.70 of 2023 on the^{file of} learned XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶18

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 grant stay of all further^proceedings including appearance^{of the} Petitioners/Accused in Proceedings in STC Nl No.70 of 2023 on the file^of learned XV Addl Judicial Magistrate of^First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri^Districtat Kukatpally, pending disposal of the main^{quash proceedings}

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of^Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^BODA VENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI JITHENDER^RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

"_*::a :'. ".. y'

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.64OO OF 2025

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Tl-ris Criminal Petition is liled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanl-rita, 2023 (for short 'BNSSJ seeking quashment of the procecdings against the petitioncrs / accused Nos. I to 3 in S.T.C.NI No.70 o[ 2023 on the file o[ the XV Additionat Judicial Magistrate of F irst Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

¶26

The petitioners are arraycd as accuscd Nos.1 to 3 in S.T.C.NI No.7O of 2023, registered lor the oflence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumcnts Act, 188 1 .

¶27

Heard Mr.Boda Venkatcsu,arlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Vceramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for thc respondent No. I State.

¶28

Learned counsel for the peLitioners submits that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioners in favor of a third party. However, respondent No. 2/ the complainant, allegedly utilized this cheque without any contractual arrangement, agrecment, or understanding rvith the petitioners. As such, the petitioners contend that tl-rey cannot be held liable for an ofcnce under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881. ln support of this contention,

¶29

¶30

NTR, J Crlp 6400 2025

¶31

reliance is placed on the judgment of thc Hon'ble Bombay Higtr Court in Hiten Sagor u. IMC Limited, and pleaded that in the authority similar proposition r,",as uphcld. Accordingly, Iearnecl coultscl prays for quashment of thc criminal proccedings initrated against tl-re petitioners.

¶32

I havt-' perused thc materials on record.

¶33

According to the conterr[s of the disputcd <;heque, thc narne of respond<:nt No. 2/the complainant-clearly appears, ancl thc r:hequc return nlemo^jssued bv tlre bzrnk also reflccts the s:rmc. Although the petitioncrs as:lert that the chcque was originalll, issued in favor of a third pzrrty and was misused by the complainalnt to initiate prosecution, this claim is raised as a matter ol dcfcnse and c:rn only be erdjuclir:atecl upon thnrugh a full fledged trial.

¶34

Ftrrtherrnore, it is notcd that the proccedings pertain t() the year 2O23. In light of these fzrcts, and considr:ring that thc disputed chcque bcals :he admittcd signatures of pctitioner Nos. 2 ar.rd 3. rl.ho are Directors of petitioner No. 1/Private Limited Companr'-this Court finds no merit in the petitioners'contentions al this slagc.

¶35

Upon cvaluation ol thc prima facie case antl given Lh:rt the relevant fzrc Ls require determination during trial, this Court finds no pcrsuasivc or substantial grounds to u,arrant cven aclmissit)lt of the petition.

¶36

---'.

¶37

¶38

NTRI J Crlp-54oo_2025

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed

¶40

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶41

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

.1 . The XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at KukatPallY

¶46

2.TheStationHouseOfficer,KPHBColonyPoliceStation'KPHB,Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶47

One CC to SRI BODA^{VENKATESWARLU Advocate [OPUC]}

¶48

Two CCs to Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶49

Two CD CoPies

VMiPSL

ry.

)

HIGH COURT

DATED: 111OG12025

ORDER

CRLP.No.6400 ol 2025

' - /,, .i. \1..,
:-- I
04 AIJE M ;l1 \r
). .\ /l
!,. 4 ,//
i i ^ ^ r.,./
'a -'f.:: ".- ' .' ':'' ?"
-j.a_-:_-i-

¶59

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Neovel Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neovel Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poloju Chiranjeeva Chary Vs The State of Telangana

Edukulla Jagadeesh Vs The State of Telangana

Pitla Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Javeed Vs The State of Telangana

Ojja Adarsh Vs The State of Telangana

Dhanavath Ramesh Vs State of Telangana