HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.839 OF 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1131 OF 2007 Date: 01.02.2010 Between: Sunkara Krishna Murthy ……Petitioner And: A.V.Sanjeeva Raju and another ……Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1131 OF 2007 Between: Sunkara Krishna Murty ……Petitioner And: Smt A. Subba Lakshmi and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.839 OF 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1131 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed by the accused in two separate cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.131 of 2005 and 205 of 2005 on the files of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada respectively relating to offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1st respondent in both the petitions who are defacto-complainants filed private complaints in the lower court against the accused when two separate cheques issued by the accused in favour of the 1st respondents in both the petitions were dishonoured by his banker for want of sufficient funds in bank account of the accused. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is no statutory notice given by the 1st respondents in both the petitions to the accused before filing of these two criminal cases. No doubt, the defacto-complainants did not refer to statutory notices issued by them to the accused in body of the complaints, but only referred to reply notices issued by the defacto- complainants to the accused for his another notice. Even though statutory notice was not specifically referred to in body of the complaints, list of documents appended to the complaints set out notices issued by the respective complainants to the accused. It is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that statutory notices were in fact given by both the complainants to the accused and they were filed along with the respective complaints in the lower courts. The 1st respondents’ counsel also filed copies of the respective statutory notices got issued by the complainants to the accused before filing the complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is a matter for the trial courts to go into and decide the question whether there was in fact any statutory notice given by the respective complainants to the accused before filing of a complaint and whether those statutory notices are in accordance with law. No other point is raised by the petitioner in these two petitions. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:01.02.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.839 OF 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1131 OF 2007 Date: 01.02.2010 Gk.