PTNVR SUDHARSHAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused of C.C.Nos.484, 486, 563 and 498 of 2013 on the file of XI and XXIII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad respectively, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) respectively from the 4 private complaints of the 2nd respondent- defacto complainant selfsame entity against the accused.

(2.) The averments in the respective complaints of the 4 cases supra that were taken cognizance show that the accused and Mr. Umesh Chandra Lunker, the representative of the complainant company are well known to each other and having certain financial and business relations. It is averred that taking advantage of such acquaintance, accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on various occasions for purchasing the shares of various companies and subsequent to it, the complainant even made several requests to repay said amount, accused is postponing without repayment on one pretext or the other and ultimately, by expressed his inability to repay the entire loan at a time, requested the complainant to accept the repayment in installments and the complainant accepted for such repayment in installments by taking into consideration of long relation between them. Accordingly, the accused executed an agreement dated 18.06.2011 with Mr. Umesh Chandra Lunker, the representative of the complainant company to repay the entire loan amount of Rs.1.5 crores in 30 equal installments of Rs.5,00,000/- each and also assured that he will issue 30 postdated cheques with duration of 15 days for each cheque and had issued postdated cheques to the complainant and also executed promissory notes to repay the amount. It is further averred that after entering into agreement with repayment schedule, the accused committed default even from the first installment itself on 08.08.2011 covered under the 1st 3 cheques bearing Nos.377121, 377122 and 377123 totaling Rs.15 lakhs and later paid the said 3 cheques amount at a time after committing default and taken back the cheques and promissory notes issued by him towards repayment of first three installments out of 30 installments. The complainant presented out of the other, the 4 cheques bearing Nos.377132, 377133, 377147 and 377148 for Rs.5,00,000/- each dated 15.12.2011, 31.12.2011, 30.06.2012 and 15.07.2012 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Bhupal Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad, with its bankers namely HDFC Bank Limited, Suryodaya, Begumpet, Hyderabad, that were returned dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notices to the accused, however the accused neither complied with the said notice nor denied the liability and is thereby liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act from the cause of action accrued and the respective 3 cheques in the 3 cases to take cognizance. It is pursuant to which and from the respective sworn statements, cognizance was taken viz., C.C.No.484 of 2013 is for cheque bearing No.377132 dated 15.12.2011, C.C.No.486 of 2013 is for cheque No.377133, C.C.No.563 of 2013 for cheque bearing No.377147 dated 30.06.2012 and C.C.No.498 of 2013 is for cheque bearing No.377148 dated 15.07.2012.

(3.) The contentions in the quash petitions are that the 4 complaints were filed by the private limited company, whereas the agreement entered by the accused is with the individual i.e., Mr. Umesh Chandra Lunker and thus it cannot be enforced in law. It is also contended that out of 6 cheques, C.C.Nos.790 and 1162 of 2012 were also filed for dishonour of 2 cheques, in which initially trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused for 3 months, against which the petitioner preferred Crl.A.Nos.387 and 388 of 2013 on the file of III Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same were allowed by setting aside the judgment of the court below. It is further contended that the cheques in question are some of the exhibits P4 to P9 in Crl.A.No.388 of 2013, which has become final and the present cases which are arising out of the same transaction barred by law, even no case made out and the continuation of the proceedings against the accused are nothing but abuse of process and are liable to be quashed.