HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7360 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.785 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint in C.C.No.785 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, against the petitioner herein, for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him by way of a cheque bearing No.858879 dated 28.12.2007 as security deposit in pursuance of a Memorandum of Agreement dated 28.12.2007 arrived at between the parties to run the business of air-ticketing at Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, as the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the said Memorandum of Agreement and willfully and intentionally cheated him resulting in huge monetary loss of about Rs.6,00,000/-, he lodged a complaint with the IV Town P.S., Visakhapatnam against her for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and the same was registered as Crime No.13 of 2009. After registration of the crime, the petitioner admitted her misconduct and guilt and hence the matter was settled between the parties and the same was reduced into writing as receipt dated 07.01.2009 and, according to which, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- towards settlement of the dispute. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner gave a demand draft bearing No.40591 dated 07.01.2009 for Rs.60,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Hyderabad, and also issued a cheque bearing No.423924 dated 22.01.2009 of the same bank for Rs.2,00,000/- in his name. When he presented the said cheque to his banker for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. On that, he got issued a notice to the petitioner on 20.07.2009 demanding payment of the amount covered by the said cheque. Having received the same, the petitioner did not pay the amount and on the other hand gave a reply dated 20.09.2009 with false and untenable allegations. Hence the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a Memorandum of Agreement dated 28.12.2007 in which it is stated that in the event of the agreement recalled/terminated by the 2nd respondent before expiry of the stipulated period of five years, the petitioner will pay the entire deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- after deducting the arrears (if any) in respect of the bills of air-ticketing only after completion of five years period of the agreement. Secondly, he further contended that for the same cause of action, a complaint was filed before the IV town P.S., Visakhapatnam by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and the same was registered as Crime No.13 of 2009, in which while granting anticipatory bail, by an order dated 22.01.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.92 of 2009, the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam observed that the dispute between the parties is basically of civil nature and the relief sought by the defacto complainant in the complaint is also for return of amount and hence there is no basis for the allegations to proceed under the criminal laws. By placing reliance on all these documents, the learned counsel prayed to quash the present complaint. As far as the first contention is concerned, the authenticity of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 28.12.2007 cannot be looked into by this Court by invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same can be raised before the trial Court which has every right to look into the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of trial. As far as the second contention is concerned, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which is interim in nature, the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be authentic to be relied on by invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that this is not a case to be quashed, at this stage, on the basis of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions that are raised herein before the trial Court at the time of trial by placing the relevant documents. With the above observation, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 4th August, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7360 of 2010 (Dismissed) 4th August, 2010 CBS