D SHAMANTAKAMANI Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 cr. P. C. , by A-3 and A-4 seeking to quash their prosecution in C. C. No. 226 of 2007-on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first Class, Mahabubnagar.

(2.) THE second respondent herein filed a complaint against the respondents 3 and 4, who are A-1 and A-2, and the petitioners herein (A-3 and A-4) alleging offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and Section 420 of the indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 4 and the petitioners herein are stated to be the partners of the third respondent firm. According to the second respondent/ complainant, the third respondent/a-1 through the fourth respondent/ a-2 borrowed a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs on 07-02-2005 from the complainant firm by way of a cheque bearing No. 946964 of State Bank of India, Mahabubnagar Branch and realized the proceeds of the cheque and executed a promissory note to repay the debt at 18% per annum and passed receipt on the same day. The complainant alleges that the accused paid an amount of Rs. 12,600/- towards part of the interest and failed to pay the balance and on repeated demands A-1 through A-2 issued a post-dated cheque bearing No. 353582 dated 13-09-2006 of State Bank of India, mahabubnagar for Rs. 3,75. 000/- purporting to be in discharge of the debt and liability and when the complainant presented the cheque for payment, it was returned unpaid on the ground that A-1 had already closed the account. The complainant gave a statutory notice on 28-09-2006 to which Accused No. 2 issued a reply notice on 13-10-2006 and A-3 and A-4 issued reply notice on 14-10-2006, denying their liability. Thereafter, the second respondent herein filed the complaint alleging offences not only under. Section 138 of the Act,-but also under Section 420 IPC. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and numbered as C. C. No. 226 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by a-3 and A-4 seeking to quash their prosecution.

(3.) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learnedcounsel forthe second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State are heard. Records are perused.