B VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'), seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners -A.3 to A.5 in C.C.Nos.168, 170 and 169 of 2012 on the file of the XXV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioners herein are A.3 to A.5, whereas respondent No.1 is the State, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are A.1 and A.2 and respondent No.4 is the de facto complainant in C.C.Nos.168, 170 and 169 of 2012 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the said C.Cs before the trial Court.

(3.) THE case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant 'M/s.Divija's Exotic Udipi Restaurant', represented by its owner Ravindra T.Shetty, filed the criminal complaints in C.C.Nos.168, 170 and 169 of 2012 on the file of XXV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act against the accused/A.1 to A.5. The owner of the de facto complainant -Restaurant alleged in his complaints that he was running the Restaurant business in lease premises at D/o 4 -3 -394, 395, 403 to 405, 409 and 410 situated at Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabaad, and when he intended to close his business and cancel his lease with the owner of the premises, A.1 represented by A.2 approached him for the purchase of the said Restaurant along with material and used utensils for a consideration of Rs.16,40,000/ -, Stall for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/ - and also agreed to pay goodwill of Rs.1,50,000/ - i.e., for the total consideration of Rs.19,40,000/ -. After cancelling the lease agreement with the owner of the premises, A.1 represented by A.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 14 th July 2011 with the de facto complainant -Restaurant. The owner of the de facto complainant stated that A.1 to A.5 are renowed persons in the hotel business and believing them, he handedover the Restaurant and the material, and as per their agreement they have not paid a single pie; that thereafter, they started running the business by changing the name of the Restaurant by 'Wah Taj' and on repeated demand by him, A.1 to A.5 represented by A.2 with the consent of the A.3 to A.5 issued a cheque bearing No.666692 dated 28.12.20011 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - and another bearing No.666691 dated 02.11.20012 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - towards part payments in pursuance of the agreement dated 14 th July, 2011. Further, A.3 issued a cheque bearing No.859987 dated 03.01.20012 for an amount of Rs.16,40,000/ -. All these cheques were presented with Vijaya Bank, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad, for clearance and those cheques were returned with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds', as such the de facto complainant filed the criminal cases.