Telangana High Court
Mocherla Sridhar Dayal vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4197 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.172 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, Nizamabad District stating that the complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other. The accused came to the house of the complainant and requested a hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for his family necessities. Complainant executed an agreement on Rs.50/- bond paper for the same. Later, the accused issued two post dated cheques vide cheque No.934354 dated 28.03.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- and cheque No.934353 dated 28.04.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/-, to present the said cheques on due date. He 2 SKS,J CRL.P.No.4197 OF 2022 further submitted that on the said date, the complainant presented the one cheque on 28.03.2019, the same was dishonored for the reason 'Insufficient Funds'. Thereafter, he presented another cheque on 28.04.2019 and the same was also dishonored. The same was informed to the accused but he did not respond and not paid the amount. Hence, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hence, the present criminal petition.
3. Heard Sri Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State. Though notice was served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running an IT company under the name and style of Pineapple Software Corporation, he is running California Business School. He further submitted that son of respondent No.2 has joined in the said institute for salesforce training on 17.09.2018 after payment of requisite fee for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- under the terms and conditions. After completion of course, the son of respondent No.2 did not attend and interviews and demanded for return of fee, which is non refundable. Later, son of 3 SKS,J CRL.P.No.4197 OF 2022 respondent No.2 and his friends attacked the office of the petitioner. Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Police but the Police did not registered the case and threatened the petitioner foisting false cases forcibly extorted two cheques for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively along with a promissory note for Rs.3,50,000/- stating that the he obtained a loan from respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2, he never approached the respondent or his son for loan amount. The son of the respondent has taken the Course from the petitioner's institute and it is a non refundable fee, as such, the respondent No.2 and his son have trespassed into the house of the petitioner with an intention to cheat and harass the petitioner for illegal gains and extortion. Again and again, they are entering into the house of the petitioner by abusing him in unparliamentarily language. Therefore, the contents of the complaint do not constitute any offence as alleged against the petitioner, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme 4 SKS,J CRL.P.No.4197 OF 2022 Court in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr 1 and in Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd 2.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that since the issues require trial, the relationship between the parties and basis for issuance of cheques cannot be decided at this stage and quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it is to be noted that basing on the cheques issued by the petitioner only the complaint was filed. Perusal of the cheques revealed that the name of the company or institution was not mentioned on them. Petitioner submitted that son of respondent No.2 joined in his institution and after completion of course, he threatened the petitioner to return the fee and forcibly taken the cheques. The contentions of the petitioner and the averments in the complaint are not corroborating with each other. Further, the decision relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand. 1 Crl.Appeal No.664 of 2002 2 Crl Appeal No.838 of 2008 5
SKS,J CRL.P.No.4197 OF 2022 Further the aspects of relationship between the parties and contention of the petitioner that the cheques are forcibly taken by the petitioner and there is no legally enforceable debt, requires trial. Therefore, this Court did not find any merits in this Criminal Petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 3, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
3 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J CRL.P.No.4197 OF 2022
10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J Dated: 23.04.2024 dgr