MAMIDI PRASANTHI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.573 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District, to quash the proceeding therein.

(2.) SECOND respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.573 of 2012. He presented a complaint against the petitioner alleging inter alia that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/ - for her business on 09.08.2009 promising to repay the same at 24% interest. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.119995 dated 04.05.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/ - towards part payment of the amount due to him. He presented the cheque and the said cheque came to be bounced on the ground of "Closure of the Account" He approached the petitioner and informed her about the return of cheque. The petitioner requested him to present the cheque once again for collection. Accordingly, he re -presented the cheque on 02.07.2011 for collection through Costal Local Area Bank Limited, Jangareddigudem. The cheque came to be returned on 06.07.2011 for the reason "Account number required". He issued notice to the petitioner calling upon her to pay the cheque amount. The petitioner received the said notice on 17.08.2011 and issued a reply on 24.08.2011 disputing her liability. Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint filed by him has been taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem as C.C.No.573 of 2012. Hence, this petition by the accused in C.C.No.573 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem, to quash the proceeding therein.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the second respondent -complainant presented the cheque for encashment on 09.05.2011 and the said cheque came to be bounced for the reason of "Closure of Account". Once the cheque came to be returned for the reason of account being closed, question of re -presenting the self same cheque does not arise. In a way it is his contention that the cheque came to be re -presented to overcome the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.