APHC010551622024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: Vadapu Venkata Subbarao Smt Konala Burra Ananda Kumari and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MOHAMMAD GHALIB SHAHID Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. RAJESH VARMA SONGA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.319 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for the all 2. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband had allegedly lent an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioner, and that the petitioner had issued two postdated cheques to the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4879 of 2023 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Smt Konala Burra Ananda Kumari and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: MOHAMMAD GHALIB SHAHID Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): SONGA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.319 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband had allegedly lent an to the petitioner, and that the petitioner had issued two postdated cheques to the 1st respondent towards the discharge of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.319 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional Senior eged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband had allegedly lent an to the petitioner, and that the petitioner had issued respondent towards the discharge of the 2 debt due payable to the petitioner’s husband. As the cheques issued by the petitioner were returned dishonoured upon presentation, the 1st respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. It is also submitted that there is no amount due and payable by the petitioner to the 1st respondent, as the petitioner never had any financial transaction with the 1st respondent for issuing the alleged cheque towards discharge of debt to the 1st respondent. On these grounds, the petitioner is seeking quashing of C.C. No.319 of 2023. 3. It is submitted that the 1st respondent cannot be considered a holder in due course based on the facts narrated in the complaint against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.M.C. No.983 of 2018, wherein the learned Judge dealt with the issue of the non-pleading of 'holder in due course' by the payee in the pleadings. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of the petitioner’s liability towards her husband, and that the cheques were issued on the instructions of her husband in the petitioner’s name. 5. On facts, the case of the petitioner is different, and the facts mentioned referred to in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala are different. As such, they are not relevant to the facts of this case. 3 6. Considering the submissions and previewing the record, the ground on which the petitioner is seeking quashing cannot be dealt with by this Court without giving an opportunity for the 1st respondent to prove the case in a trial. The issue of liability or otherwise has to be dealt with by the learned Magistrate Court during the course of the trial. As such, it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 and quash the complaint. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 10.04.2025 PNS