THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6005 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 Between: D.Yadaiah .. Petitioner And M/s Deepika Chit Funds (P) Limited and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6005 of 2008 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at the time of entering into guarantor agreement, the 1st respondent obtained blank cheque bearing No.337261 from the petitioner herein during the year 1999 towards security for the balance of chit amount. Subsequently, the 1st respondent closed its business and after lapse of seven years without any intimation or notice to the petitioner, principal borrower and other guarantors got presented the said cheques by filling the date and amount. Therefore, the said complaint is vague and he draws the attention of the Court to the averments of the complaint lodged before the lower Court. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent while placing reliance on the additional counter filed by him urged that the petitioner is none other than the father of the chit subscriber i.e. D.Balaraj. As per the directions of this Court in Company Application No.795 of 2003 the 1st respondent issued demand notice to the chit subscribers as well as the guarantors. The petitioner is one of the guarantors received demand notice and came forward and issued a cheque for Rs.1,66,380/- dated 03.03.2006 bearing No.337261 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Ramakirshnapuram Branch, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent company presented the said cheque before their bank and the same was dishonoured for want of insufficient funds and the petitioner issued the cheque towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt, as such the petitioner shall be prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the N.I. Act”). The 1st respondent herein filed private complaint under Section 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) read with Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter and registered a case in C.C.No.209 of 2007. It is an admitted fact that after taking cognizance of the matter, both the parties have participated in the legal proceedings before the learned Magistrate Court in C.C.No.209 of 2007 and as on the date of granting stay P.W.1 was cross-examined. The reasons for filing the present petition to quash the proceedings after commencement of cross-examination of the complainant are not known. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged cheque amount against which the present complaint is filed, is not legally enforceable debt and it is a cheque with ante-date. It is the contention of the learned 1st respondent’s counsel that the petitioner executed the cheque and for which a notice also issued, having received the said notice he kept quiet and not raised the present claim, which cannot be appreciated. As already stated, the trial was commenced, the truth or otherwise of the genuineness of the cheque and the payments made therein and whether it is ante-dated or not is to be decided in due course of trial after adducing evidence by both the parties and already P.W.1 was cross-examined in part. Due to granting of stay, the proceedings before the lower Court was stalled and is not proceeded with. The stay was granted in the year 2008. However, unless there is a finding on the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is premature to give any finding about the authenticity of the cheque, which is the subject matter in C.C.No.209 of 2007. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not hold water. Therefore, I see no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The parties are at liberty to expedite the trial before the lower Court, if they are otherwise advised. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 16-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6005 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 MR