IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8071 OF 2009 Between: Dr.P.S. Venu Madhav ..... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The allegation of the Respondent No.1/complainant is that the petitioner/accused issued two cheques for discharge of amount towards arrears of chit amount and when one of the cheques was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement “Payment Stop by Drawer”. After giving a statutory legal notice, the complaint is filed. Challenging the same, the present criminal petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused contended that two cheques were obtained under threat from the petitioner/accused; and that the cheque in question was not given for legally enforceable debt. He also contended that the Civil Court has not determined the liability of the petitioner/accused. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings of the complaint. 4. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. The disputed factual aspects cannot be decided and determined by this Court exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the cheque was given for discharge of legally enforceable debt as contended by the Respondent No.1/complainant, or whether the cheque was obtained by force under a threat, are the aspects to be decided and determined by the trial Court after adducing the necessary evidence. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused is that there was no decree passed by the Civil Court fixing the liability on the petitioner/accused and therefore, the complaint is premature. This Court is unable to accept the said contention because the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, comes into play when a debt is legally enforceable. If the Respondent No.1/complainant has got a right to file the suit to recover the amount, that itself constitutes a prima facie offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent No.1/complainant need not wait till the determination of the liability of the petitioner/accused by the competent Civil Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 5th October, 2009. KL