Telangana High Court
Smt. Adla Geethanjali, vs The State Of Telangana on 17 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4588 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 582 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in STC.NI.No.5 of
2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy
District at Chevella.
2. The complainant-2nd respondent filed a complaint stating
that A.1 and A.2 are the mother and daughter, approached him for
a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to meet their financial commitments and
also assured that they will return the said amount within six
months. A.1 and A.2 also executed a promissory note and even
after six months, they have not repaid the amount. On persistent
requests and demands of the 2nd respondent, A.1 issued cheque on
her behalf and also on behalf of petitioner for the said amount. It
is further stated that when the cheque was deposited in the Bank,
it was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Account closed'. As
such, the complainant filed complaint against A.1 and A.2. The
said complaint was taken cognizance by the trial Court. Aggrieved
by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Mettu Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Though notice is
received by the 2nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-A.2 is
that petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque and she is no way
concerned with the cheque issued by A.1, that she is also not
signatory to the alleged promissory note executed by A.1 and
without there being any liability, the petitioner herein is made as
accused. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Alka Khandu Avhad V Amar Syamprasad
Mishra and another 1 and Bijoy Kumar Moni V Paresh Manna
and another 2. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner-A.2.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for petitioner and the material placed on record, it is seen that A.1
and A.2 are the mother and daughter and they approached the 2nd
respondent for advancing the loan amount of Rs.20 Lakhs. The
petitioner herein is neither the signatory to the alleged promissory
note nor signatory to Ex.P.1-cheque. It is pertinent to note the
1 (2021) 4 SCC 675
2 2024 SCC online SC 3833
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alka Khandu
Avhad's case wherein it is observed as under :
"8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length, considered material on record and
also considered the averments and allegations in the complaint. It
emerges from the record that the dishonoured cheque was issued
by original Accused 1 husband of the appellant. It was drawn
from the bank account of original Accused 1. The dishonoured
cheque was signed by original Accused 1. Therefore, the
dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1 and it was
drawn on the bank account of original Accused 1. The appellant
herein-original Accused 2 is neither the signatory to the cheque
nor the dishonoured cheque was drawn from her bank account.
That the account in question was not a joint account. In the light
of the aforesaid facts, it is required to be considered whether the
appellant herein-original Accused 2 can be prosecuted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of
the NI Act?
9. On a fair reading of Section 138 of the NI Act, before a person
can be prosecuted, the following conditions are required to be
satisfied:
9.1. That the cheque is drawn by a person and on an account
maintained by him with a banker.
9.2. For the payment of any amount of money to another person
from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability.
9.3. The said cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that
account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the
amount arranged to be paid from that account.
10. Therefore, a person who is the signatory to the cheque and
the cheque is drawn by that person on an account maintained by
him and the cheque has been issued for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability and the said cheque has
been returned by the bank unpaid, such person can be said to
have committed an offence. Section 138 of the NI Act does not
speak about the joint liability. Even in case of a joint liability, in
case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has
drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be
prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. A
person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, but if such
a person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly,
cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly
maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque."
6. To attract the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the
cheque has to be drawn by a person and on an account maintained
by him with a banker and payment of any amount of money to
another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
7. In the present case, the petitioner herein is not the joint
account holder, that the account is in the name of A.1 and cheque
is also issued by A.1 and that petitioner is not the signatory to the
promissory note, as such, she is no way connected with the alleged
transaction. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the
petitioner-A.2 is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, the
proceedings against the petitioner herein are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in STC.NI.No.5 of
2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy
District at Chevella are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 17.06.2025
Rds
