1
crlp_4258_2015
AVR,J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4258 of 2015
ORDER:
The petitioner/accused has filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
The 2nd respondent has filed a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, alleging that she has approached the quash petitioner for admission in D.Ed course in Gokul college and he assured to allot a seat in Management quota for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- she has paid the said amount but the quash petitioner has failed to allot seat and in turn returned an amount of Rs.80,000/- and gave a cheque for Rs.60,000/- and the cheque on presentation returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient".
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent got issued a legal notice dated 17.07.2013 but it was returned unserved and that she has filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, vide C.C.No.403 of 2013. As per the contents of the complaint, the receipt appended to the complaint shows that it is issued in the name of one Smt. P. Amrutha D/o Venkataiah. Further, the name contained in the cheque is shown is Kavali Amruthamma and thus there is inconsistency as to the name of complainant in the documents of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.
Further, in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra1, all the complaints have been transferred to the Courts having jurisdiction where 1 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 190 (SC) 2 crlp_4258_2015 AVR,J the payee bank is situated. In the instant case, the cheque issued was drawn at State Bank of India, Nalgonda, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda, the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013 cannot be continued at Vikarabad. The complaint is filed with a malafide intention to harass the quash petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to submit that in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh (1 supra) only the Courts wherein the drawee bank is situated will have territorial jurisdiction and, in the case on hand, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda, has the jurisdiction and, on that count, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, has no jurisdiction and that there is inconsistency in the name of the complainant. There is one name on the receipt, another name on the cheque and the some other name on the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act is liable to be quashed.
Initially, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh (1 supra). In fact, considering the grievance expressed, to overcome the said decision, the Government of India has amended the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide Act 26 of2015 and the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 vide Sections 142(2) r/w. 142(A) has now modified the law laid down by Dashrath Rupsingh (1 supra) whereby it was held that complaint of dishonour of cheque can be filed only in the Court within the local jurisdiction where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn. The place of issuance or delivery of statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to file cheque for encashment by his bank as per Dashrath Rupsingh (1 supra) were not relevant for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction for 3 crlp_4258_2015 AVR,J filing cheque bounce cases. But the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 vide Section 142(2) r/w. 142(A) have modified the law in Dashrath Rupsingh (1 supra) and the petitioner cannot rely on the principle laid down in the said judgment. As a result, the complaint on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad is maintainable.
The other contention of the petitioner is that there are three different names of the 2nd respondent; one on the receipt, another on the cheque and the third is on the complaint filed by him for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted for the time being it shows that her name is recorded in all the three documents either as Amrutha Kavali, P. Amrutha, or Kavali Amrutha. When a cheque is issued in favour of Kavali Amrutha irrespective of the name in the receipt, Kavali Amrutha or Kavali Amruthamma, is entitled to file case under Section 138 of NI Act for dishonor of cheque with remarks 'insufficient funds'. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this ground.
The Hon' ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others2, at paragraph 8 has categorically held as to the material that may be considered by the High Court to quash the proceedings, which reads as under:
"It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very 2 (2020) 3 SCC 317 4 crlp_4258_2015 AVR,J exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."
Thus, it is clear from the law laid down that the Hon' ble Supreme Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged, the High Court cannot quash the proceedings.
In the case on hand also, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, having considered the material available on record, taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Summons were issued to the accused and he is making appearance, prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner/accused. Hence, at this stage, this Court cannot quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the request of the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad.
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Interim stay granted by this Court on 11.06.2015 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J 08th November, 2021 ksm 5 crlp_4258_2015 AVR,J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4258 of 2015 08th November, 2021 KSM