MAATA RANI Vs. JANGALA ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State and Mr.Somisetty Ganesh Babu for the 1st respondent/de facto complainant.

(2.) The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the F.I.R.No.245 of 2020 on the file of the Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station, Guntur District, which is registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 379 and 420 of IPC. The 1st respondent lodged the said complaint, inter alia, stating that he filed a complaint on 4/8/2020 in the Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station that his Pass Book and Blank Cheques of State Bank of India, Brodipet, Guntur were missing, and that he obtained a certificate to that effect. Further, on receipt of a legal notice dtd. 10/12/2020, wherein it was intimated that a cheque was bounced and on verification of the cheque number, he noticed that it is one of the missing cheques. It is also alleged in the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner herein that he had obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 from the petitioner in the presence of one Istavath Hanuma Naik and Desavath Lakshma Naik and the said cheque was issued in respect of the loan transaction. He requested the Police to take action in this regard on the persons, who have stolen the cheque for the purpose of receiving money through the said cheque.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the said complaint was lodged by the 1st respondent as a counter-blast to the case filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the very fact of lodging the complaint on receipt of statutory notice got issued by the petitioner would make it crystal clear that the 1st respondent is trying to escape from his liability and prevent the petitioner from pursuing the remedies under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that filing of criminal case with a malafide intention amounts to abuse of process of Law and the same cannot be permitted. The learned counsel also submits that the 1st respondent/de facto complainant being a Motor Vehicle Inspector with his influence obtained a certificate with regard to alleged missing of cheques only with a view to get over the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. While drawing the attention of this Court to the complaint, he submits that there is no allegation that the cheques were unsigned, that blank cheques were lost and further that in the case of signed cheques statutory presumption would lend support to the case of the petitioner that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt. The learned counsel further submits that registration of crime against the petitioner under Ss. 379 and 420 of IPC is not sustainable, in as much as, no ingredients of the said offences are attracted in the facts of the present case. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., vs. Rajiv Dubey 2009 (1) SCC 706, Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P., and Another 2016 LawSuit (SC)1476 and Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 369 the learned counsel seeks to quash the F.I.R registered against the petitioner.