aHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.6408 and 6434 of 2009 Dated : 19.08.2009 Between : M/s.S.R.K.Constructions & Projects (P) Ltd. & another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.6408 and 6434 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Dhananjayaa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent, in both the cases. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent in both the petitions as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission by this common order as they arise out of the same set of facts. C.C.No.178 of 2009 and C.C.No.179 of 2009 on the file of the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, were filed by the second respondent in both the petitions against the petitioners in both the petitions respectively in respect of an offence committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in connection with two different cheques issued by the petitioners. The second respondent claimed in the complaint that the petitioners requested the second respondent to arrange a sum of Rs.40 lakhs for the purposes of the contract work undertaken by them under the second respondent through letters dated 29.12.2005 and 07.01.2006 and for repayment of the said amount within one month as promised, the two post dated cheques respectively for Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs were issued, which were later presented and dishonoured. The second respondent also claims to have issued statutory notices in respect of the dishonoured cheques demanding payment, but no payment was admittedly made. The petitioners claim that the amount of Rs.40 lakhs was paid only as an advance and the said two cheques were obtained at the time of paying advance only as security, but not by way of discharge of any debt. The petitioners also further refer to the later events concerning the execution of the work, which are not quite germane for considering the tenability or otherwise of the prosecution of the petitioners. Thus, while the second respondent claims the amount of Rs.40 lakhs to have been advanced at the request of the petitioners for the repayment of which, two cheques in question were issued, the petitioners claim the said money to have been paid as advance towards security for which two cheques were obtained. The allegations and counter allegations raise disputed questions of fact and it is well settled that in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court will not indulge in a deep fact finding enquiry and this Court is not supposed to probe into the genuineness or acceptability of the allegations of the prosecution in such an enquiry. As it cannot be said ex facie that there is absolutely no substance in the allegations of the second respondent against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage and the matter has to be enquired into on merits by the trial Court. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 19th August, 2009 SUR