IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAHs^^ TUESDAY. THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4672 OF 2022 Between: 1. Smt. Rajini Gurrala, Proprietrix, M/s Harshitha Print Pack Salipet, Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada Rural, District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. M/s Harshitha Print Pack,, A Proprietary Concern, Rep. by its Proprietrix Smt, Rajini Gurrala, M/s Harshitha Print Pack, 9/123, Salipet, Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District, Pradesh. . 9/123. Krishna Andhra ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. M/s Kolar Paper Mills Limited, represented by its General Manager, Sri A.V. Ramanjaneyulu. s/o Chandram, Hindu, 50 years, R/o Parameswara Mangalam Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Poranki Branch, Poranki, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. . 4. The Branch Manager., ICICI Bank Limited. Puttur Branch, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS -2- Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the complaint in C.C.No.336 of 2Q21 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Puttoor, Chittoor District to secure the ends of justice. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.336 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Puttoor, Chittoor District including appearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the Quash Petition in the interests of justice This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K A NARASIMHAM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010241572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4672/20?? [3396] PRATAPA Between: 1.SMT. RAJINI GURRALA,, PROPRIETRIX PACK, 9/123, SALIPET M/S HARSHITHA PRINT VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISNSRIc/irorR^'p^l^D^a^!"^^^ 2. M/S HARSHITHA PRINT PACK,, A PROPRikTARY CON^RN RPP PRIN?p^^r9jf2T'"sA!rp"pT"r M/s" HARSH^TH^A rrtiiM I rAUK, 9/123, SALIPET, PORANKI PENAMAI IIRI i mamhai VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH^"^ ’ ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PURI ir amaKi°g’unTur d°str1c?'''"°"^'' “"-LS LIMITED, REP. BY ITS GENERAL M^Y^RS R/n CHANDRAM, HINDU. manual CH^OOR DISTRICT MANGALAM VILLAGE, PUTTUR ^’loAK MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA PORANKI BRANCH, PORANKI, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4.THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK LIMITED PUTTUR BRANCH CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH ’ ^^^^UR BRANCH. counsel for the Pe,i.loner/acoused(sf^®'’°"°^"™°“'’‘^"'^''^<®>^ 1.KA NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: % ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.336 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881^. 2. Heard Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the reason on which the subject cheque was dishonoured would not make the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.l.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the reason for dishonor of the cheque is “No PAN Form RBI Mandate but not due to insufficient funds. It is further submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would submit that the subject cheque was issued by way of security 1973^ has 3. to ensure future payments and the same was not given towards any debt. Learned counsel would finally submit that no prima facie case is made out the Petitioners for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of is mere abuse of process of law. Hence, against proceedings against the Petitioners prayed for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. ^ for short ‘Cr.P.C ^ for short ‘the Act’ 3 4. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners and, as such. at the threshold, the case against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for determination: Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both 5. the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused in C.C No.336 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur? Determination by the Court: A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary: (i) to give effect to any order under 6. the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) A court while sitting in Section 482 Cr.P.C to secure ends of justice. jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.' The case of Respondent No.2/Complainant, in brief, is that. Accused No.1 is a Proprietorship Company and Accused No.2 is the Proprietrix of A.1- Company. Respondent No.2 has supplied Kraft Paper since 2018 to the 7. Accused on credit basis and as per the ledger account maintained by Respondent No.2, the A. 1-Company found due a sum of Rs. 11,45,159/- by 31.01.2021. When the Complainant demanded for payment of the said amount, A. 1-Company had issued a cheaque bearing No.033714, dated 19.02.2021 drawn on Union Bank of India, Poranki Branch for the said amount and on presentation, the said cheque was returned with a memo dated 01.03.2021 endorsing “NO PAN FORM RBI MANDATE”. Inspite of receipt of the legal notice dated 26.03.2021 got issued by the Complainant for repayment of the cheque amount, the Accused had not paid any amount. Hence, the complaint. There is no dispute about the fact of existence of business transactions between the Complainant and the Accused. Petitioners that, in view of the supply of material by the Complainant, on their demand, the subject cheque was issued by the Petitioners only towards security. It is further contended by the Petitioners that, in view of the COVID - 19 Pandemic, the Petitioners could not make out the payment to the Complainant. It is further contended that this is not a case of dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds and the Banker did not take steps directing the Petitioners to comply with the RBI mandate and as such, the instrument not cleared. It is further contended that the subject cheque which was taken towards security cannot be presented for clearing the outstanding due. As seen from the material placed on record, admittedly, the Petitioners are due to pay an amount of Rs.11,45,159/- to Respondent No.2. Further, 8. It is the contention of the was 9. 5 there is no denial about issuance of the subject cheque by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2 in view of the business transactions between them. The mail correspondence between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 would clearly show the same. In view of the existence of the debt to be paid by the Petitioners to the Complainant, the case cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the subject cheque was returned on the ground “NO PAN FORM RBI MANDATE” but not due to insufficient funds in the account of A.1- Company. All the contentions raised by the Petitioners have to be raised before the trial Court and the same cannot be looked into, at this stage, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are disputed questions of fact which are to be decided during trial by the trial Court. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is not permissible to act as if it were a trial Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court to quash the case against the Petitioners/Accused. Without prejudice to the defences available, the Criminal Petition is 10. 11. dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. / Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur, Chittoor District. ' 2. One CC to SRI. K A NARASIMHAM, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies RDB (RDB) HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4672 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED I j I ij fi ii