HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No. 4865 of 2008 Date: 08-07-2010 Between: Munshi Srikanth …. Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and another ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No. 4865 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant and the accused known to each other and the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of construction work, which will be carried on through M/s Kanishka Builders, for which the Accused is a managing partner and agreed to return the said amount after completion of one year and further agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as goodwill after completing the venture. On demand, the Accused issued cheque No.013588, dated 07-08-2007 in discharge of the loan amount received by him. The accused also issued another cheque No.013589, dated 07-01-2003 towards the agreed good will. When the cheque issued towards discharge of the loan amount was presented, it was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice through his Advocate to the Accused demanding to repay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of legal notice. The legal notice was returned unserved as unclaimed and the Accused did not pay the amount. Therefore, he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that civil suits are pending between the parties and there is a memorandum of understanding between the parties and there is no enforceable liability on the part of the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to pass any order on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court wherein he has every right to rebut the allegations. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to pass any order as prayed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s presence may be dispensed with before the trial Court. Considering the submission of the learned counsel, the petitioner’s presence before the trial Court is dispensed with except the dates on which the learned Magistrate insist for the appearance of the petitioner. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 08-07-2010 YCR