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
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
2018 1 SCC 638
SKS,J
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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
