M.Sharath Chandra, Nalgonda Town ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp. And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3267 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3267 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2021

Telangana High Court

M.Sharath Chandra, Nalgonda Town ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp. And ... on 8 November, 2021

Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy

                                              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

2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 190 (SC)

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

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

(2020) 3 SCC 317

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