THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 12347, 12350, 12352 and 12353 of 2010 ORDER: These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in criminal cases pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni. The respondent is the same in all the Criminal Petitions, except the respondent in Criminal Petition No.12350 of 2010, who filed C.C.No.156 of 2009. Criminal Petition No.12347 of 2010 relates to C.C.No.215 of 2009, Criminal Petition No.12352 of 2010 relates to C.C.No.214 of 2009 and Criminal Petition No.12353 of 2010 relates to C.C.No.216 of 2009. The criminal cases were filed by one Chodisetti Kannarao, whereas criminal case in C.C.No.156 of 2009 filed by Kurella Veera Venkata Satyanarayana on the basis of cheque bearing No.796030 dated 06.10.2008 issued by the petitioner herein for the liability towards the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- borrowed on 06.01.2008 under a promissory note. The criminal case in C.C.No.215 of 2009 relates to the cheque No.796032 said to have been issued for the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The criminal case in C.C.No.214 of 2009 relates to the cheque No.796031 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The criminal case in C.C.No.216 of 2009 relates to the cheque No.796028. The accused being common in all the cases, has filed these applications to quash the proceedings. Before going into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that when once a cheque was issued, the presumption is that it is supported by consideration and the question whether the debt was discharged or not, is a question of fact and the enforceability of the debt is also a question of fact, which has to be decided only by appreciating the evidence on record. The plea of the petitioner herein leaves no doubt about the fact that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for purchase of some properties and he has issued two cheques on 19.02.2007 bearing Nos.796029 and 796030 and three more cheques, which are post-dated 25.12.2008 bearing No.796028, 796031 and 796032. For a decision in these applications, it is not necessary for this Court to elaborately deal with the arguments sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is suffice to refer to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the quash petition: “4. It is submitted that as per the complaint, petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the complainant for doing real estate business and to repay the same with an interest of Rs.6 per month. At the time of borrowing the above amount petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.796029, 796030 for each cheque worth of Rs.5,00,000/- and issued post- dated cheque No.796028, 796031, 796032 on 25.12.2008 drawn on State Bank of India, Gopalapatnam Branch, Visakhapatnam for each Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. On several demands made by the complainant the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and took back the cheques No.796029, 796030 and executed a letter in favour of the complainant. 5. It is submitted that petitioner originally borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for his business purposes and he executed an understanding agreement for the said amount on 19.2.2007 under which document the complainant has agreed to recover the said amount from the petitioner either at a time or by installments with interest at the rate of Rs.6/- per month per hundred. Under the said agreement both of them should appear before the Sub-Registrar Office and should sign all the sale deeds. And also mentioned in the said document the petitioner has to clear the said amount as and when the plots are sold, the complainant has agreed to execute relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioner with regards to the plots situated at Arumpudi village, A.Annavaram Panchayat, Tuni, Sankavaram Mandal, E.G.Dist., and petitioner got the said properties under two documents bearing No.826/2002 and 912/2003. 6. It is submitted that at the time of execution of document dated 19.2.2007 the complainant has obtained five blank signed cheques bearing Nos.796028, 796029, 796030, 796031 and 796032 drawn on State Bank of India, Gopalapatnam Branch, Visakhapatnam, for collateral purpose. Later subsequent transaction petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and to that effect received the receipt from complainant. Later as per the agreement petitioner cleared the remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant.” The allegations, therefore, unequivocally show that the amount was borrowed for business purpose and the cheques were issued and interest was also agreed to be paid and the petitioner herein claims to have discharged the same. The agreement dated 19.02.2007, which is sought to be relied on by the petitioner also reiterates the above fact and that agreement was entered as a business of security for the realization of the debt by Kannarao. The registered sale deeds dated 30.10.2009 and 04.11.2009 only relates to sale of property worth Rs.52,000/- in favour of the petitioner and the respondent. In fact, the petitioner has filed the suit O.S.No.679 of 2009 and in that also specifically it was pleaded that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was borrowed and the cheques were issued. He claims to have discharged the debts and consequently a mandatory injunction is sought not to enforce the cheques. Therefore, from the above allegations, it is quite clear that the cheques were issued for a liability, which is enforceable and for the money, which was actually borrowed and repeatedly admitted the question as to whether the debts have been discharged or not, cannot be considered at this stage. The only question that remains is when the cheque bearing No.796030 is said to have been given to Chodisetti Kannarao in 1997 as to how the same was gone in the custody of Kurella Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, who filed the C.C.No.156 of 2009. According to the case of Kannarao, the above cheque was taken return by the petitioner after payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. In fact, in the reply notice the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was admitted. Therefore, the question as to whether this cheque was after taking return of the same, whether it was given again to the complainant Satyanarayana or not, has to be decided only after taking the evidence. Therefore, from the very admissions of the petitioner and also the material on record and conduct, it is quite clear that the cheques were issued for legal liability, which is enforceable and the question as to whether the debts were discharged or any other understanding between the parties can only be decided during the trial of the cases. It is not a case where the inherent power of this Court is to be exercised for quashing the proceedings and, there are no legal aspects. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 19-07-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 12347, 12350, 12352 and 12353 of 2010 DATE: 19-07-2011 MR