offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.- It is for the petitioner/accused to prove during trial that the signature appearing on the cheque in question is not that of him.


CRLP 2499 / 2013

CRLPSR 8461 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RAHUL BISWAS  VSSTATE OF AP., & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : NAGENDERRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c under sec.138 and 142DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.2499 of 2013


ORDER:

        This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.58 of 2013 on the file of II Special Magistrate, Cyberabad, R.R.District at Rajendranagar.
        The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.58 of 2013 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  The 2nd respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.58 of 2013.   It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- in the first week of August, 2002 and issued a post dated cheque.  He presented the cheque and the same came to be dishonoured.  He issued a statutory notice calling upon the petitioner/accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque. Since the petitioner/accused has not responded to the notice, the complainant initiated proceedings against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
        Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1strespondent-State.
        It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the signature appearing on the cheque in question is not that of him and therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.58 of 2013 are liable to be quashed.
        It is for the petitioner/accused to prove during trial that the signature appearing on the cheque in question is not that of him. 
 In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.58 of 2013 on the file of II Special Magistrate, Cyberabad, R.R.District, at Rajendranagar.

        Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.18-03-2013

RAR































Comments