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
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
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
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.
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
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
