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

Popular posts from this blog

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

SALE OF ASSIGNED LAND OF EX- SERVICE MEN AFTER 10 YEARS, NOT QUESTIONABLE= The lands that are assigned to Ex-servicemen, however, are treated differently. For all practical purposes, such lands are taken away from the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1994, directing that, after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment, the Ex-servicemen shall be entitled to alienate the land assigned to them. In case, ten years have expired from the date of assignment in favour of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner, the respondents cannot object the alienation made by his vendor.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.