Telangana High Court
Nagubandi Nagalaxmi vs State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1063 of 2024
ORDER :
This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.NI Act No.5448 of
2022 on the file of XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.
2. Heard M/s.P.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. G.Narender Raj, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused
the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the proprietor of "Thrikara Pharma" and doing
business in pharmaceuticals (Generic) investing her own funds
and also by obtaining necessary licenses from the concerned
authorities. Respondent No.2 proposed to join the business of the
petitioner and had invested Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to share
50% of the profits. Both of them entered into a memorandum of
understanding. Due to pandemic and serious lockdown, the
business could not be operated successfully. As such, petitioner
and respondent No.2 agreed to dissolve the firm and to get the
firm stock in trade etc. evaluated through authorized auditor. After
audit of accounts, profit and loss arrived at was to be shared in
the ratio of 50:50. The petitioner had kept signed blank cheque
book with the respondent No.2 enabling her to manage the
business and also to look after payments. However, the
respondent No.2 presented five cheques claiming her amount of
Rs.8,85,000/- which were to be presented after the audit of the
accounts and the same were dishonoured for want of funds.
Respondent No.2 got issued a legal notice in the name of "Sai
medicals" which was run by husband of petitioner instead of
"Thrikara Pharma" run by the petitioner herself. However, the
petitioner got issued a reply notice denying the averments and
allegations.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations made are baseless and the complaint is liable to be
quashed. The provisions of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act are not complied with, as no notice was sent to the petitioner
to her address. The respondent No.2 had retained the signed
blank cheque book and without adverting to the terms of
agreement, arriving at an amount and presenting cheques for
amount before conducting audit of the accounts is not in
accordance with law. As per Memorandum of understanding, the
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- invested by respondent No.2 was
freezed for six months and after six months, she shall receive
profits for the next ten months.
5. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Karnataka
High Court in M/s.Makara Jyothi Chits Pvt. Ltd v. Mr.Kishore
Ronald Rebello 1, wherein it was held that "The complainant
has not issued the legal notice to the accused as required
under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881" and the High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, prays to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 submits that it is admitted fact that the petitioner has sent
reply to the notice issued, though it is averred that the notice is
given in the name of "Sai Medicals" run by husband of the
petitioner instead of "Thrikara Pharma" run by herself.
7. He placed reliance upon the following decisions-
1. Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2, passed by
Allahabad High Court.
2023 NCKHC 42924
2021(2) Civil Court Cases 0156:2021 (1) Criminal Court Cases 0299
2. Decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arm Group
Enterprises Ltd. v. Waldorf Restaurant 3
3. Decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in HMT
Watches Ltd. v. M.A.Abida and Anr. 4 , wherein in para 10 it was
held that -
"Whether the cheques were given as security or not,
or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a
question of fact which could have been determined
only by the trial Court after recording evidence of the
parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have
expressed its view on the disputed questions of fact in
a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is
not made out. The High Court has erred in law in going
into the factual aspects of the matter which were not
admitted between the parties. The High Court further
erred in observing that Section 138(b) of N.I.Act stood
uncomplied, even though the respondent No.1
(accused) has admitted that he replied the notice
issued by the complainant."
Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. On perusal of the material on record, it is admitted fact that
notice was issued in the name of "Sai Medicals" run by the
husband of petitioner instead of "Thrikara Pharma" run by the
petitioner and it is admitted that the petitioner has sent reply to the
said notice, issued by the respondent No.2/complainant.
However, in view of the submissions and the decision held by the
2003 LawSuit (SC) 393
2015 LawSuit (SC) 244
Hon'ble supreme Court, as there are disputed question of facts in
the matter, which are triable issues in nature, this Court is of the
view that this is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings and
opines that no interference is required at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 04.11.2025
BV
