THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6730 of 2008 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above said C.C.No.28 of 2008 and the respondent No.1 herein has filed the complaint against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that on 23.03.2006 the petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent herein for the purpose of discharging his sundry debts and family expenses and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Subsequently, on the repeated requests of the respondent No.1 herein, the accused did not choose to pay the amount, but on18.03.2007 the accused issued a cheque bearing No.0815962 dated 18.03.2007 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Akkayyapalem Branch, Visakhapatnam towards the principal amount. The said cheque was dishonoured on 05.05.2007 with an endorsement “funds insufficient” and the said fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner herein and at his request the respondent has presented the cheque again on 14.09.2007 and the same was dishonoured once again for the same reason “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the respondent herein got issued a legal notice on 20.09.2007 calling upon the petitioner herein for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- within ‘15’ days from the date of receipt of the notice and the said notice was returned “not claimed”. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. The petitioner’s counsel had pleaded that the surname of the petitioner in the promissory note is mentioned as “Gade”, whereas his surname is “Godla”, as such he has not executed the promissory note in favour of the respondent herein and he further pleaded that when once the cheque was dishonoured on 05.05.2007, he cannot represent the cheque once again without knowledge of the petitioner. As such the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the complaint is not maintainable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. The 1st respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, had pleaded that the petitioner has issued the cheque for repayment of the loan taken by him by executing a promissory note and whether the surname mentioned in the promissory note is correct or not has to be ascertained during the course of trial and the respondent is having right to represent the cheque till the legal notice is issued demanding for repayment of the amount. As such the complaint filed by him is maintainable. 6. As per the averments made in the complaint, the petitioner herein issued a cheque on 18.03.2007 for Rs.2,50,000/-, which was alleged to have been borrowed by him from the respondent herein by executing a promissory note. Whether the Surname of the petitioner mentioned in the promissory note is correct or not has to be ascertained during the course of trial before the lower Court. With regard to the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the said cheque cannot be represented once again after informing about the dishonour of the cheque to the petitioner, the said contention of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted as rightly pointed out by the respondent’s counsel that the cheque can be represented any number of times after its dishonour, and only after issuing of the legal notice required under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cause of action starts for filing the complaint and it is not a bar for him for representing the cheque once again. More over, it is alleged in the complaint on informing the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner himself requested the complainant for extension of time to present the same cheque once again and promised to arrange funds for the payment of the said cheque. Therefore, as per the averments made in the complaint itself shows at the request of the petitioner only, the cheque was represented by the respondent herein. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for quashing of the proceedings as the averments made in the complaint prima-facie establishes the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRSAD, J 31st March, 2011 KSP