Sri T.G. Ranganath v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.15880 OF 2016 ORDER:

This criminal petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.118 of 2016 pending on the file of III Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District, for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') on the following grounds.

a) the second respondent herein filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act creating residential address at Mysore, to harass the petitioner.

b) the entire transaction took place Bangalore and filed complaint on identical and similar facts in PCR No.13806 of 2015 before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, and that such filing of complaints one after the other is nothing to an abuse of process of the Court.

c) the last ground urged before this Court is that the petitioner lost his pouch containing cheques and about loss of cheques he lodged a complaint to the Police and that the second respondent also lodged a complaint with Maredpalli police station that the petitioner lost 20 cheques and the same is registered as a case in Cr.No.300 of 2015 and it is pending.

During hearing, Sri Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above contentions, has contended that filing complaints one after the other successively

- 2 - before different courts is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and if the contentions of the petitioner are accepted, the proceedings in the complaint cannot be continued and liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Admittedly the second respondent filed complaint before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad and it is transferred to III Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act alleging that the he advanced an amount of Rs.6,21,000/- to the petitioner to clear litigation relating to the land at Bangalore, and to discharge the debt, the petitioner allegedly issued a cheque bearing No.775662 for Rs.1 crore dated 15.11.2015 and it is presented for collection through collecting bank, it was returned by the drawee bank with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, he complied necessary formalities required under the Act and filed the complaint.

The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that the complainant and second respondent are resident of Bangalore.

As seen from the complaint pending before the III Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, the second respondent is the resident of Plot No.201 and 202, Subbarao Residency Brindavan colony, Navabharath Bank street, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, R.R. District, and when he presented the cheque with ICICI Bank, Dr.A.S. Rao Nagar Branch, Ranga Reddy District, it was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Therefore filing complaint at

- 3 - Rangareddy District, on its face value would not be an illegal and the alleged intention to harass the petitioner cannot be enquired into while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the petitioner that the court before which the complaint lacks jurisdiction, when the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is not challenged, this court need not look into the said territorial jurisdiction of the court to quash the proceedings.

The second contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent filed a complaint on similar and identical facts before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in PCR No.13806 of 2015.

The said complaint is filed for dishonour of cheque bearing No.775661 dated 25.08.2015 for Rs.1,50,00,000/-, whereas the present complaint is filed for dishonur of cheque bearing No.775662 for Rs.1 crore. The transaction covered by the complaint before the Bangalore Court and the transaction covered by the complaint before the III Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, are distinct and mere filing a complaint before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Bangalore would not debar the second respondent to file complaint before the III Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri. Therefore, on this ground, the complaint cannot be quashed.

The third ground urged before this court is that the petitioner lost his pouch containing cheques, he gave complaint to the police, but those facts cannot be decided at this stage, since it is a disputed question of fact, and the court only after

- 4 - trial can decide whether cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt or the cheque came into the hands of the second respondent on account of loss of cheques as contended by the petitioner. Loss of cheques and issue of cheques in lieu of discharge of either in whole or part of legally enforceable debt due to the complainant is a disputed question of fact and such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of law declared by the Apex Court in SANAPALLE SATYANARAYANA RAO v. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENRGY OF DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED1.

Therefore, on this ground, the complaint cannot be quashed since the allegations made in the complaint on its face value would constitute an offence and it is not suffer from any inherent defect to file complaint and it would not fall within the ambit of guidelines Nos.1, 6, and 7 laid down by the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL2, and hence I find no ground to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.118 of 2016 pending on the file of III Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 10.11.2016 BV 1 AIR 2016 SC 4363 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335