Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 07-09-2026 Date of uploading : 09-09-2026 APHC010010052023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 188 OF 2023 Between: SMT.ADUSUMILLI ANASUYA, W/O.YUVARAJULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.19-14-45/3, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATHI 2. M RAVI KUMAR, S/O.MADHAVA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.498, BA RAGI PATTED A, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.350 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Hon'ble Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, Chittoor District against the petitioner/accused, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the 2 SUN, J Crlp_188_2023 High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in C.C.No.350 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Hon'ble Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, Chittoor District against the Petitioner/Accused, including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of main criminal petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Docket Order dt. 29-08-2023 passed in CC No. 350/2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati Chittoor District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition No. 188/2023 by this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_188_2023 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION No. 188 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.350 of 2019 on the file of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. The case of the petitioner is thus: a) Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint in C.C. No.350 of 2019 alleging that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- from him, on three occasions i.e., on 03.02.2016, 29.08.2016 and 18.11.2016 and upon repeated demands, petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.231507, dated 29.12.2018 towards part payment of the debt and interest due. When the cheque is presented, the same is returned with an endorsement „account closed‟ vide memo dated 02.01.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued legal notice dated 25.01.2010, filed Civil Suit O.S. No.47 of 2019 on the foot of three promissory notes seeking recovery of Rs.20,12,332/-. The petitioner had not issued any cheque in favour of respondent No.2 and the cheque bearing No.231507 clearly reveals that it was not issued from the account maintained by the petitioner and further, the account bearing No.1082100227091191 is that of her husband and having empty cheque of her husband, respondent No.2 fabricated the same, forged her signature and filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act. Since the cheque was not issued from the account maintained by the petitioner, the complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act is not maintainable. Among other grounds, petitioner mainly urged this Court to quash the proceedings as main ingredient of Section 138 of N.I Act is missing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2. 4 SUN, J Crlp_188_2023 4. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material placed on record, the point that would arises for consideration is: Whether the petitioner had established her case to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.350 of 2019 of the offence under Section 138 of the Act? 5. As seen from the record, respondent No.2 filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner on the ground that she had borrowed an amount of Rs.12,50,000/-, executed promissory notes agreeing to repay the amount with interest @24% per annum and on repeated demands, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing no.231507 dated 29.12.2018 towards part payment of debt due under the promissory notes and when the said cheque is presented, the same is returned with an endorsement „account closed‟ vide memo dated 02.01.2019. Further, after issuing legal notice dated 21.05.2019, respondent filed the complaint and the same is registered as C.C. No.350 of 2019 and further, respondent No.2 also filed the suit in O.S. No.47 of 2019 on the foot of promissory notes seeking recovery of Rs.20,12,332/- and the same is pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that to attract Section 138 of the Act, ingredients of the said Section have to be complied with by the respondent No.2 and in this case, even as per the version of respondent No.2, the cheque bearing No.231507, dt.29.12.2018 was issued by the petitioner and the said cheque is not that of the petitioner and the same is issued from the account maintained by her husband Mr.Adusumilli Yuvarajula Naidu and as such, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that the petitioner being borrower had issued the said cheque towards part payment of debt covered under promissory notes and as such, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is maintainable. 5 SUN, J Crlp_188_2023 7. Section 138 of N.I Act reads thus: “138.Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: 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 to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 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: So, the very starting words of this Section says that the cheque must be drawn by a person on account maintained by him or her. 8. To substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the copy of passbook issued in the name of husband of the petitioner and in which, it is mentioned that the said account bearing No.1082100227091191 was maintained by Mr.Adusumilli Yuvarajula Naidu and the cheque bearing No.231507 also contains the same account number. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, however, relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar1. Facts of that case are entirely different to the facts of the case at hand and this proposition is in respect of inchoate instruments. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that signatures of the petitioner are forged and the cheque is fabricated, cannot be considered in this petition and only aspect that is to be considered in this 1 2019 (4) SCC 197 6 SUN, J Crlp_188_2023 petition is that whether the cheque issued by the petitioner is drawn out from her account maintained by her or not. The main ingredient to attract the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the account must be maintained by a person who had issued cheque towards the discharge of a debt covered under any instrument. It means account must be maintained by accused herself. Admittedly, account is not maintained by the petitioner but it is maintained by her husband and as per the cheque return memo dated 02.01.2019, the account was already closed. No authorization letter or resolution from bank is produced to show that the petitioner is authorised signatory to operate husband‟s account and mere relationship of wife does not give authority to operate husband‟s bank account. Moreover, the said account is already closed. Therefore, cheque in question is not “cheque drawn on account maintained by the petitioner”. Added to it, drawer means an account holder and wife signing husband‟s cheque does not a cheque in the eye of law and such cheque cannot be subject matter of Section 138 of the Act. 10. Assuming for the sake of arguments, even if the debt is admitted, if cheque is not from the accused‟s account, complaint under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable as the liability is linked to cheque and account, not only debt. 11. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No.350 of 2019 on the file of the learned Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, Chittoor District of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner/ accused are be and hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 07.09.2026 knl