Saturday, 18, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

D.S.Shridhar vs P.John And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6767 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6767 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2022

Telangana High Court
D.S.Shridhar vs P.John And Another on 13 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
     HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                    AT HYDERABAD
                           *****
           Criminal Petition No.3492 OF 2022

Between:

D.S Shridhar                              ... Petitioner

                          And
P. John & Another                      ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:             13.12.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to           Yes/No
      see the Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                   Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

 3    Whether Their
      Ladyship/Lordship wish to see          Yes/No
      the fair copy of the Judgment?




                                         _________________
                                         K.SURENDER, J
                                2




        * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
                   + CRL.P. No. 3492 of 2022




% Dated 13.12.2022

# D.S Shridhar                                 ... Petitioner

                            And
$ P. John & Another                      ... Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Gujjari. Naveen Kumar

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Santosh Kumar Goud
                                   for R1
                                   Sri S.Sudershan,
                                   Addl. Public Prosecutor for
                                   R2

>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
                                3




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           Criminal Petition No.3492 of 2022
ORDER:

1. Petitioner is questioning the complaint filed under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mainly on the

ground that the reasons given by the banker while returning

the cheque does not confirm to the twin reasons assigned

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for

prosecuting a drawer of the cheque.

2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant

took hand loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs on 05.07.2018 in the house

of the complainant in the presence of witnesses. A cheque

was also issued on the very same day for Rs.30.00 lakhs. The

said cheque was presented for clearance and the same was

returned unpaid on 17.07.2018 for the reason of 'kindly

contact drawer/drawee bank and present again'. Again the

said cheque was presented for clearance, which was returned

on 16.08.2018 for the reason of 'kindly contact

drawer/drawee bank and please present again'.

3. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

prosecution can be launched if the cheque is returned unpaid

for the reason of 'insufficient funds' or 'it exceeds

arrangement to be paid'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that apart from two reasons, if the reasons are 'account

closed' and 'payment stopped' by the drawer' are also liable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. As seen from the cheque, it was printed in the year

2008. The Bank has returned the cheque by specifically

mentioning reason of 'kindly contact drawer/drawee bank

and please present again' which is in the handwriting of the

banker stating that drawer or drawee bank has to be

contacted and then present the cheque.

5. As stated in the complaint, the question of returning the

cheque for 'insufficient funds' does not arise. As seen from

the cheque return memo, the reason of 'funds insufficient' is

number 6. The Bank has returned twice for the reason 19

stating 'kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please

present again' which was handwritten. When the reason for

returning the cheque does not conform to the twin

requirements mentioned under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act or if the account is closed and payment

stopped by drawer as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the reason mentioned by the Banker to contact the drawer or

drawee bank and present again will not amount to a reason

for which, the prosecution under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act can be launched.

6. If the complainant is aggrieved and in the facts of the

case if an offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of

IPC is made out, complainant is at liberty to prosecute

accordingly. Since there are no ingredients to launch

prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be

quashed.

7. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in

CC No.287 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate at Zaheerabad, are hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 13.12.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked.

B/o.kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Petition No.3492 of 2022

Date: 13.12.2022

kvs

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter