APHC010237512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5666/2025 Between: TANMAY BHOWMIK, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. NO.18, BLOCK 16, NANDI GARDEN PHASE 2. JP NAGAR 9THPHASE. BENGALURU 560062. MOBILE- 8217083718 EMAIL. BHOWMIK.TANMAY@GMAIL.COM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. DR GARLAPATI KRISHNA KANTH, MD, LEUK TECHNOLOLOGIES PVT LTD HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND DOCTOR R/O. SRI DATTA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL. 12-5-11, PRAKASH NAGAR. NARASARAOPET. GUNTUR -522601. MOBILE- 9885097036 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PRESECUTOR, HIGHER COURT OF AMARAVATHI. AMARAVATHI ANDHRA PRADES ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. MOHAMMED ABDUL BASITH The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioner/Accused, to complaint in C.C.No.351 of 2025 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I.Act’). 2. Heard Sri Tanmay Bhowmik, Petitioner – Party in Person and Sri Mohammed Abdul Basith, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. 3. Petitioner – Party in Person would submit that the subject cheques were alleged to have been issued by the Petitioner in personal capacity. However, the cheques show that they were issued on behalf of the Company. It is further submitted that, the Company is not made as an Accused in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Petitioner would further submit that, under the coercion, the subject cheques were taken by Respondent No.1. It is submitted that the work agreement dated 01.12.2021 between the parties is the only agreement between them. The agreement which is referred by the Complainant in their complaint dated 29.03.2023 is a created one. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the subject cheques were issued in the personal capacity of the Petitioner in compliance of the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that, when there is a serious question regarding the disputed facts, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1, there is a disputed question of fact and hence, this Court cannot quash the case against the Petitioner, at this stage. 3 6. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge is directed to appreciate the same and take an appropriate decision over the matter in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.11.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5666 of 2025 Dt.25.11.2025 Dinesh