Telangana High Court
Garapati Srujan vs The State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10338 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.5548 of 2022 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C stating that he is an Advocate and in the year 2017, the petitioenr, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Sri Vinayaka Paper and Boards Limited, approached him in a case pertaining to the aforesaid company before the National Company Law Tribunal and availed legal services. The petitioner and respondent No.2 got acquaintance with each other. In the year 2019, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to meet his personal expenses. The receipt of the said amount has been duly acknowledged by the petitioner by executing a promissory note with a promise to repay the said 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10338 of 2023 amount within a period of two (2) months. After two months, on several demands, the petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos.000014 and 000015 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. It is further stated that the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to present the said cheques after 15 days from the date of issuance of the cheques. On his request, respondent No.2 presented the same after 15 days in the bank and the same were dishonored with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds'. It is further stated that the petitioner issued the cheques to respondent No.2 in discharge of a legally enforceable debt purportedly with an intention to cheat him.
3. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint before the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. The present case pertains to cheque bearing No.000014 dated 06.04.2020 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the same numbered as C.C.No.5548 of 2022.
4. Heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10338 of 2023 Counsel representing Sri A.P. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Smt. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana 1, wherein it is categorically held that when there is a specific bar for doing money lending business that too with his own client, the act of respondent will amounts to professional misconduct. He further stated that except stating that the petitioner approached respondent No.2 to appear in a case before NCLT on his behalf, but the particulars of the case were not provided. He further submitted that respondent No.2 have advanced money, that too a hefty sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in cash, during the lock down period and the same indicates that he was trading in hard cash and black money and there is no proof of like tax returns to that effect. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the above said judgment relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand as he is not claiming his fees from the petitioner and the petitioner borrowed 1 2018 1 SCC 638 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10338 of 2023 the money from him and that lending of money is no way concerned with the advocate and client relationship. The case before NCLT was already concluded and due to the acquaintance, in COVID-19 period, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 for hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- for his personal expenses and respondent No.2 did not claim any interest, as such, it is not the case under the money lending business. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2 , 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 2 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10338 of 2023 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."
9. In the present case, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is an advocate and he cannot lend money to his client and that there is a bar for doing money lending business that too with his own client. The averments in the complaint reveal that respondent No.2 is claiming fees from the petitioner. According to respondent No.2, he gave hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner, for his personal needs and there is no interest part in the said agreement and there is no document to show that he is doing money lending business. The another contention of the petitioner is that there is no legally enforceable debt and that respondent No.2 has not shown his capacity to lend such amount and has not filed income tax returns and any account details. Legally enforceable debt cannot be decides in the quash 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10338 of 2023 petition and it requires trial and respondent No.2 has to produce evidence with regard to his account details and also his capacity to lend the amount. Whether the cheques are issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt has to be decided by the trial Court.
10. In view of the above discussion and as well as the law laid down by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. 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.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.06.2024 SAI