R. SUDARSHAN REDDY Vs. GURRALA VIJITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.6211 of 2021 challenging the orders dtd. 22/10/2019 passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1831 of 2019 in C.C.No.6211 of 2021, which was filed for sending the cheque in dispute to the hand writing expert.

(2.) The brief facts, as can be gathered from the record presented before the Court, are that respondent No.1/complainant has filed C.C.No.6211 of 2021 against the petitioner/accused under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act"). The contents of the said complaint would go to show that on 4/1/2017, the petitioner has approached respondent No.1 to invest an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs in the film production of a movie titled as Prema Katha Chitram-2 for which respondent No.1 promised to pay the said amount within four months and accordingly, paid an amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs on 4/1/2017 and also issued cheques for some more amounts in the month of January and February, 2017, in the presence of one A. Prabhakar Reddy, who is no other than the father of respondent No.1. In all respondent No.1 has paid an amount of Rs.28.00 lakhs. On persistent demand by respondent No.1, the petitioner has given cheque for Rs.4,80,000.00, which was honoured and subsequently, paid Rs.60,000.00 in four installments. Finally, the petitioner failed to pay an amount of Rs.22,60,000.00 to respondent No.1. On 1/8/2018, the petitioner has issued post dated cheque bearing No.309129, dtd. 8/8/2018 for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs in the name of RPA creations. When respondent No.1 presented the said cheque, the same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement "payment stopped by drawer".

(3.) Respondent No.1 got issued legal notice dtd. 19/11/2018, which was served on the petitioner on 22/11/2018, wherein she demanded the petitioner to pay the money covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and as there was no response, she filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Act. The trial Court has proceeded with the trial and after appearance of the petitioner, respondent No.1 was also examined as PW.1.