IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8574 OF 2009 Between: Kalva Nagaraju, S/o. K. Ashok Kumar …… Petitioner AND M/s. Steel City Securities Limited, Rep. by its Assistant Manager Inspection K. Mohan Rao & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8574 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner Kalva Nagaraju – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.1064 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Heard both sides. 3. There is no dispute about the relevant cheque bearing No.000644 dated 19-06-2006 for Rs.2,74,712/- being issued by the petitioner and its not being honoured on account of ‘stop payment order’ by the petitioner. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the complainant in paragraph No.4, wherein it is mentioned that petitioner along with his henchmen came and forcibly snatched away an earlier cheque, which was also bounced, and cheque return memo, is a vague and flimsy one. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner part of the allegations against the petitioner that he along with his henchmen snatched away an earlier cheque from the complainant looks unnatural. But, the main dispute is with regard to the cheque dated 19- 06-2006, which was admittedly signed and issued by the petitioner, though he says that it was for different purpose i.e. for security. 6. Further, there are several questions of facts and as already referred there is no dispute about the relevant cheque being signed and issued by the petitioner, as such, it is not a case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 7. However, in the circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Warangal and the case is filed at Visakhapatnam, on an appropriate application being filed by him, it is directed that the trial Court shall dispense with the presence of the petitioner except when required i.e. at the time of framing charges, examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and judgment etc. In view of this facility being given to the petitioner, the complaint shall not be dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 26, 2009. PV