Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Sofia Angel vs Hra Pradesh Hyderabad

High Court Of Telangana|28 July, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8496 OF 2012 Dated 28th July, 2014 Between : Sofia Angel … Petitioner a n d
1) The State, through Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad … Respondent
2) Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by Sri D.Sree Ramulu, Legal Assistant, Legal Department Having its office at No.66, Arcot Road Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600024 Local Office at 4-1-970, 1st Floor, Ahuja Estates Upasana Abids Hyderabad – 500 001 … Respondent/Defacto Complainant THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8496 OF 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash CC.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Special Magistrate, Erramanji, Hyderabad.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner herein is accused in the above C.C, filed for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in a chit transaction, petitioner stood as guarantor for the chit amount paid to the bidder by name one Samson A.J. According to the complainant, in discharge of that amount, petitioner herein issued a cheque, but according to the petitioner, at the time of payment of amount to the said Samson A.J. blank cheque was taken from the petitioner. He submitted that cheque was returned on 25.09.2010. Notice was issued on 23.10.2010 and the same was returned on 28.10.2010 and complaint has to be filed before 12.12.2010, but the complaint is filed into Court on 16.12.2010, therefore taking cognizance of such complaint is clearly illegal and liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that complaint is filed on 06.12.2010, but not on 16.12.2010, and to support the same he had produced certified copy of the complaint. He further submitted that the contention of blank cheque is a matter of evidence and it is a defence available to the petitioner which has to be decided during trial and it cannot be decided in a quash petition.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the complaint is filed beyond the statutory time; therefore, taking cognizance of such complaint is illegal. According to the petitioner, the complaint was filed on 16.12.2010, and according to the second respondent it was filed on 06.12.2010. The second respondent, along with his counter affidavit, filed certified copy of the complaint. A perusal of it disclose that the complaint is filed before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.12.2010 as per the endorsement of the said Court. So, the objection of the petitioner that the complaint was filed on 16.12.2010 cannot be accepted in view of the endorsement of the Magistrate as to the date of filing of the complaint. The second objection of the petitioner is that he is only a guarantor and there is no legally enforceable debt as on the date of issue of cheque. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent, it is a matter of evidence whether the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or a blank cheque pressed in to service has to be decided only after examining the witnesses of both parties and by appreciating the evidence. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court cannot weigh evidence or decide the matter on the basis of submissions of both sides. Therefore, the objection that the blank cheque was presented into service cannot be decided at this stage and it is for the petitioner to urge the said grounds before the trial Court. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to urge these grounds before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider and decide them as per law without being influenced by any of the above observations.
8. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
S.RAVI KUMAR, J 28th July, 2014 mva
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sofia Angel vs Hra Pradesh Hyderabad

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
28 July, 2014
Judges
  • S Ravi Kumar