HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7936 of 2007 Date: 23-04-2010 Between: Smt. Akella Aruna ……….. Petitioner and M/s. Samkshema Chits and Finance Limited and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7936 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.875 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The main allegation against the petitioner is that she joined as a member of the chit, participated in the auction, became the successful bidder and received the chit amount, but subsequently failed to repay the said amount. The first respondent-complainant filed O.S.No.2673 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said suit has been decreed in favour of the complainant and subsequently the complainant filed E.P.No.8 of 2006 in the said suit and that the salary of the petitioner was attached for realization of the total amount of Rs.79,048/-. Later the petitioner came forward and compromised the matter and issued twelve post dated cheques for Rs.7,000/- each and out of the said cheques, two cheques were dishonoured on 12-08-2006 with an endorsement Account Closed and the same was intimated to the complainant on 13-08-2006. The first respondent-complainant after issuing the required notice on 23-08-2006 and after serving the same on the petitioner on 31-08- 2006, filed the complaint alleging that the petitioner had issued the cheques knowing fully well that the Account was closed and the cheques would be dishonoured. 3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had sent a reply notice on 23-08-2006 stating that she had issued twelve cheques and that she had already requested the first respondent-complainant not to present the cheques, since she had been transferred to Delhi, and also requested to return the cheques to her. It is further submitted that inspite of receiving the said reply notice a complaint was filed against the petitioner. 4. It is also submitted that subsequently the first respondent had filed E.P. and that the due amount has been already recovered from the salary of the petitioner and in view of the same, the proceedings may be quashed. 5. Perused the grounds of petition. There are no sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. The points raised by the learned counsel in this criminal petition may be raised before the trial Court and if at all the petitioner had already paid the entire due amount, the same may be brought to the notice of the trial Court for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. If at all the entire amount has already been paid, I do not think that the first respondent- complainant will proceed with the trial. 6. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 23-04-2010 YCR