IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 10536, 10522 & 10534 OF 2022 Criminal Petition No. 10536 of 2022 Between: Vatsavai Srinivasa Raju, S/o.Subba Raju, Aged 53 years, D.No.27-3-85 Sriramapuram, Bhimavaram-534 202, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent 2. Central Bank of India, having its Branch Office at Pedamiram, rep.by its General Power of Attorney Holder Central Bank of India, Tanuku Branch Chief Manager Mr.Vasapalli Annada Rao, S/o.Veerraju, Aged 55 years. Residing at Tanuku (Aadhar No. 9007 7228 1490). ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 proceedings in CC.No.251 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 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 extend the interim order dated 30-12- 2022 passed in CrI.P.No. 10534 of 2022. LA. NO: 1 OF 9099 Petition under circumstances stated in the High Court CC.No.251 of 2022 i Judge-cum-l Additional West Godavari District, Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the the Memorandum of Grounds may be pleased to of Criminal Petition grant stay of all further proceedings in the I Additional Junior Civil on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate pending disposal of the Criminal of First Class, Bhimavaram, I Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing of Grounds of Criminal Petition and Purga Prasad, Advocate behalf of the Respondent No.2. ■ perusing the Memorandum upon hearing the arguments for the Petitioner and No.1 and None Appeared of Sri P. the Public Prosecutor on for the Respondent Criminal Petition Np. IQ5?? Between: of2^2 D.No.27-3-85 ■■.petitioner/accused AND at Amaravatht Ali^^hra pfa^de^ Prosecutor, High Court General^Potef 'of'%tomey 'po^der‘'c r rep by its Branch Chief Manager Mr Vasapam A^rJH^' '"^i^ Tanuku years, Residing at Tanuku (Aadhar Na 9007 7&8 f490X™^"' ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ) 482 of Cr.P.C Petition under Section praying that in the of Criminal Petition, circumstances stated in the High Court the Memorandum of Grounds may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC.No.253 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate District. of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari i.A. NO: 1 OF 20?.^ 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 extend the interim order dated 29-12- 2022 passed in CrI.P.No. 10522 of 2022. i.A. NO: 1 OF 202? Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings i CC.No.253 of 2022 Petition, in on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. his Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. purga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent Criminal Petition No: 10534 of 2099 Between: Vatsavai Srinivasa Raju, S/o.Subba Raiu Aqed 53 vears n Mn 97 n r<; Sriramapuram, Bhimavaram-534 202, West Godavari DisWct ’ ° ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED I. A.®S?va"hra ^'9^ Court ...Respondent clnefal^Poww 'nf Atll?u Pedamiram, rep.by its 5“rs^ReL“nglfTan“ATdhL^^^^^ ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS AND 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 proceedings in CC.No.252 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 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 extend the interim order dated 30-12- 2022 passed in CrI.P.No. 10534 of 2022. i.A, NO: 1 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 i;. CC.No.252 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class West Godavari District. in Bhimavaram, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following Common Order: on 1 APHC010707732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 10536, 10522 AND 10534 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10536 OF 2022 Between: Vatsavai Srinivasa Raju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition No. 10536 of 2022, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.251 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 The Criminal Petition No. 10522 of 2022, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.253 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. The Criminal Petition No. 10534 of 2022, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.252 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. Since the issue involved in all these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. Fleard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. 4. Notice has been served on the 2"^^ respondent, but none represented. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2"'^ respondent has filed three complaints vide C.C.Nos.251, 252 and 253 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram, against the petitioner herein under 3 Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheques said to have been issued by the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) each. On receipt of the complaint, the trial court without recording the cogent reasons has converted the same from summary trial to summons trial. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions came to be filed. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner never involved in the affairs of the complainant/ 2"^ respondent and if in case had his involvement is there he would have signed on the said tri-party agreement. Further, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case without any iota of evidence and recital of the record would show that the subject matter attracts malafide intention of deliberate afterthought and inordinate delay in filing the complaint. 7. Learned counsel would finally submit that the investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features and infirmities. The alleged offences are purely personal in nature and the same shall not impact the society. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited”^ wherein it was held as follows;- The appellant approached the High Court to seek quashing of the complaints arising out of 18 cheques of the value of about Rs. 10.3 crores. Contention of CrI.Appeal No.867 of 2016, datedl9.09.2016 = http://indiankanoon .org/doc/59606615/ 4 the appellant in support of his of security as mentioned ,i were issued, no debt case was that the cheques were given by way in the agreement and that on the date the cheques or liability was due. Thus, dishonour of post-dated cheques given by way of security did not fall under Section 138 of the Act Reliance was placed on clause 3.1 (Hi) of the deposit of post-dated cheques toward agreement to the effect that ^^Poyment of instalments was by way of ■security. Even the first instalment as per the agreement became due subsequent to the handing over of the post- dated cheque. Thus, contended the appettant, it was not towards discharge of debt or tiability in present but for the amount payable in future. The High Court did not accept the above contention and held ;- 10. In the present case when the the loan had been sanctioned and hence post-dated cheques were issued, the same fall in the first category that ,s they were cheque issued for a debt in present but payable Hence. I find no reason to quash the complaints. However, observations are only prima facie i in future, these in nature and it will be open for the party to prove to the contrary during trial.- IVe have heard learned counsel for the parties. It will be appropriate to reproduce the statutory provision in question which is as follows: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounf '133. - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for 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, 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 by an agreement made with that bank. such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice this Act, be punished with imprisonment for to any other provisions of a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque. or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - 5 (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 8. 8. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the subject cheques were issued as a security, hence, there is no question or proof of any evidence, which falls under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the light of decision cited supra. It is further contended that the petitioner is not an original borrower and given cheques only for the purpose of security and that question of filing a case against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise. Therefore, the Criminal Petitions are liable to be allowed. as 9. Considering the submissions made and on bare look at the material on record, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present Criminal Petitions that there is no existence of legal liability to the respondent No.2 in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 10. This Court finds that when there is verifiable material available on record, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioner. However, it is left open for the petitioner to raise all his contentions and 6 decisions cited supra before the trial court, as the decision cited supra is not applicable at this juncture. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case for quashment. 11. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. 12. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- IVI. SRINIVAS I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTI FICER To, 1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri P Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to Public Prosecutor Amaravathi. [OUT] Judicial High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 4. Three CD Copies Chp TF HIGH COURT DATED;13/02/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.10536,10522 and 10534 of 2022 g 23 JUN 20;- f ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS