[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Rahemath Nasreen vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3625 OF 2025
DATE: 09.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Rahemath Nasreen
.....Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and another
.....Respondents
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.NI.No.166 of 2024 on
the file of the learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Secunderabad, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 138 and 142
of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and
the accused were well acquainted, and on 20.10.2020, the
accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.12,50,000/- from the
complainant, promising to repay within six months. Upon
repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque dated
29.06.2021 bearing No.566011 drawn on Syndicate Bank
towards repayment of the said amount. The complainant
presented the cheque on 27.09.2021 through Bank of Baroda,
Bowenpally, but it was returned on 05.10.2021 with the
endorsement "stale cheque." Thereafter, the complainant
issued a statutory legal notice dated 22.10.2021, which was
received by the accused, who replied denying liability. As the
accused failed to pay the amount within the statutory period,
the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 138 and
142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I.Act') and
Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard Sri Akella Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 - State and Sri Palreddy Jithender Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the
cheque in question was returned with the endorsement "stale
cheque," which does not attract the provisions of Section 138 of
the N.I.Act. He further submitted that the cheque was
presented beyond the validity period of three months, and
therefore no legally enforceable liability arises. He contended
that there was no existing debt and the complainant is a
stranger, and the proceedings are an abuse of process of law.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the
judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in
Virender Singh Dhanta vs. Khajan Singh 1 and the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. vs.
Jayaswals Neco Ltd. 2, to contend that prosecution based on a
stale cheque is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by
allowing this Criminal Petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a
legally enforceable debt and was presented within the
prescribed period of three months from the date of issuance and
that the endorsement "stale cheque" was wrongly made by the
bank, allegedly at the instance of accused, and the cheque was
in fact valid at the time of presentation. He further submitted
that all statutory requirements under the N.I. Act have been
2 (2001) 3 SCC 609
duly complied with and that the accused, having participated in
the trial for a considerable period, cannot seek to quash the
proceedings at a belated stage. He contended that the defence
raised is a matter for trial and the petition is filed only to delay
the proceedings, and therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss
the Criminal Petition.
6. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on
either side and a perusal of the material available on record,
this Court observes that the principal contention advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque in
question was returned with the endorsement "stale cheque",
and therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted to the present
case, whereas the contention of learned counsel for respondent
is that such endorsement was erroneously made by the bank at
the instance of the accused, and that the cheque was, in fact,
valid at the time of its presentation, and that all statutory
requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act have been
duly complied with. Going through the said contentions this
Court notes that, in order to attract the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque must be
presented within its period of validity, and its dishonour must
be on account of insufficiency of funds, stoppage of payment, or
closure of account. In the present case, the endorsement on the
cheque itself indicates that it was returned as a "stale cheque",
which implies that the cheque was not presented within the
period of its validity. In such circumstances, when the cheque
was not presented within the prescribed validity period, the very
foundation for invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted. As such this Court
is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against
the petitioner are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused in
C.C.NI.No.166 of 2024 on the file of XIX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad is hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date : 09.04.2026
Rds
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3625 OF 2025
DATE : 09.04.2026
Rds
