VILLA NAGA LAKSHMI Vs. MUTTA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking to have the proceedings in C.C.Nos. 172, 277 and 287 of 2004, on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam quashed, the sole accused, in these three criminal cases, has filed Criminal Petition Nos. 4350, 4351 and 4352 of 2004 before this Court. Since the petitioner- accused is the same in all the three cases, and as the question of law which arises for consideration is similar, all the three criminal petitions were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common order. The allegations in the complaint, filed in C.C.No. 172 of 2004 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is that complainant is the absolute owner of 28 Sq.yards of undivided and unspecified share of land, from out of an extent of 400 Sq.yards situated in Sy.No. 23/5 part Butchirajupalem, which he purchased under Registered sale deed dated 17.10.2001 and Registered Document No. 3170 of 2001. He entered into an agreement for construction of a flat in a plinth areas of 825 sft., in Sri Gayatri Nilayam and paid the entire construction cost of the said flat to the accused. On finding that the construction was inferior in quality, and not in accordance with the quality assured, the complainant requested the accused to replace the inferior material with quality material. The accused is said to have expressed her inability to replace the same and to have informed the complainant that, if he was not satisfied with the quality of work done by the accused, she was ready to refund the amount and take back the constructed flat. It is alleged that the accused did not obtain any permission from the Corporation, had induced the complainant and had deceived him to deliver the property. After deliberations and discussions with the Complainant, and other flat owners, the accused is said to have agreed to refund the amount due of Rs.3,40,000/- by 30th November, 2002 and in turn the complainant had agreed to vacate, and handover vacant possession of the said flat to the accused, on receipt of the entire consideration. The accused is said to have issued cheque bearing No. 319607 dated 30.09.2002 for Rs.1,40,000/- requesting the complainant to present the cheque by the end of the 1st week of October, 2002. The accused is said to have issued another post dated cheque dated 30.11.2002 for Rs.2,000,000/-. On the complainant presenting the cheque, through his banker on 12.10.2002, the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason "Insufficient Funds". The complainant got issued registered notice dated 17.10.2002, which was received by the accused on 24.10.2002, to which the accused issued a reply on 26.10.2002. The complaint was filed, nearly a year later, on 16.10.2003. The petition filed to condone the delay in filing the complaint, in Crl.M.P.No. 1140 of 2004, was ordered and the delay was condoned.

(2.) The allegations in the Complaint, filed in C.C.No. 277 of 2004 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, are that the complainant is the absolute owner of 28 Sq.yards of undivided and unspecified share of land, from out of an extent of 400 Sq.yards situated in Sy.No. 23/5 part Butchirajupalem. which he purchased under Registered sale deed dated 17.10.2001 and Registered Document No. 3170 of 2001, that he had entered into an agreement for construction of a flat in a plinth areas of 825 sft, in Sri Gayatri Nilayam and had paid the entire construction cost of the said flat to the accused. On finding that the construction was inferior in quality, and not in accordance with the quality assured, the complainant requested the accused to replace the inferior material with quality material. The accused is said to have expressed her inability to replace the same and to have informed the complainant that, if he was not satisfied with the quality of work done by the accused, she was ready to refund the amount and take back the constructed flat. It is alleged that the accused did not obtain any permission from the Corporation, had induced the complainant and had deceived him to deliver the property. Eventually the accused agreed to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the end of 30th November, 2002 and the complainant agreed to vacate, and handover vacant possession of the flat to the accused, on receipt of the entire consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused is said to have issued cheque bearing No.319603 dated 30.09.2002 for Rs.1,50,000/- requesting the complainant to present the cheque by the end of the 1st week of October, 2002. The accused is said to have issued another post dated cheque dated 30.11.2002 for Rs.3,50,000/-. On the complainant presenting the cheque bearing No.319603 for clearance on 10.10.2002 the cheque was returned unpaid, for the reason "Insufficient Funds', vide memo dated 12.10.2002. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 17.10.2002 which was received by the accused on 24.10.2002, to which the accused sent a reply on 26.10.2002. The complaint was filed, nearly a year later, on 16.10.2003. The petition filed to condone the delay in filing the complaint, in Crl.M.P.No.1142 of 2004, was ordered and, by order dated 07.04.2004, the delay was condoned.

(3.) The allegations, in the Complaint filed in C.C.No.277 of 2004, under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable 17.10.2002, which was received by the accused on 24.10.2002, to which the accused issued a reply on 26.10.2002. The complaint was filed, nearly a year later, on 16.10.2003. The petition filed to condone the delay in filing the complaint, in Crl.M.P.No, 1140 of 2004, was ordered and the delay was condoned.