HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO. 3937 OF 2010 Date: 29.04.2010 Between: M/s.Christy and Christy, …..Petitioner And: M/s.Raj Agencies and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3937 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed questioning order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl.M.P.No.669 of 2010 in C.C. No.44 of 2009 by which the lower Court dismissed petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C to summon documents from the opposite side i.e., the complainant. Summoning of documents 2) It is the complainant’s case that the petitioner issued the cheque in question towards repayment of amount under an agreement entered into between the complainant’s son and the petitioner and that when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in connection with the transaction covered by the agreement, the petitioner gave two blank cheques as security to the complainant’s son and that the 1st respondent/defacto complainant pressed one of the cheques into service and filed this case illegally against the petitioner. The said contention is based on disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation since the cheque return memo is dated 24.12.2007 and since notice was given on 21.01.2008, postal acknowledgement of which was received on 29.01.2008 and the complaint was filed in the lower Court in March, 2008. There are corrections in the date contained on the complaint, which can be seen from certified copy of the complaint produced before this Court. It is not known whether it was presented on 04.03.2008 or 11.03.2008. Actual date of presentation will be noted in the registers of the lower Court, either in the C.F.R register or S.R register or inward register. The lower Court after perusing those registers will determine actual date of filing of the complaint and whether the complaint is time barred. In any event, the 1st respondent/complainant has invoked Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also in this case. So, having regard to all these controversies and facts, it is a matter for evidence and decision by the trial Court after trial. I do not find any valid reasons to quash proceedings in the lower Court at this stage. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date: 29.04.2010. KSH