THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2961 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 792 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet, Guntur district. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that 1st respondent/complainant is doing business in cotton. A.1 company is doing business in cotton spinning and yarn. A.2 is the Managing Director and A.3 is the Chairman, A.4 to A.9 are Directors, of A.1 company. The accused induced the complainant to supply cotton bales, and on belief, the complainant supplied cotton bales between June, 2001 and August, 2001 worth Rs.25,39,696/-. To discharge the debt, A.2 issued cheques in favour of the complainant and when the same were presented, they were returned with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and payments stopped by drawer. Then a notice was issued and a reply notice was also issued by the accused. Thereafter, the private complaint is filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and the same was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, police submitted detailed report alleging that the records are proving the cheating attitude of the accused under N.I. Act. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The private complaint filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. was referred to police for investigation. Police, after completion of investigation, filed report dated 20.1.2005. After referring to the relevant facts, the report inter alia reads thus: “I have personally verified the records with reference to the CFR and found they are proving the cheating attitude of accused under N.I. Act.” Basing on the said report, the court below took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’). 5. Taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is guided by Section 142 of the Act. Clause (b) thereof reads that such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Clause (c) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act, reads thus: “the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.” In the case on hand, after return of the cheques, the complainant got issued notice on 20.12.2001. But, the complaint has not been filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the accused. Therefore, taking cognizance of the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is completely against the provisions of Section 142 of the Act. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 6. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 792 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet. ---------------- 8.7.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2961 OF 2007 Date: 8.7.2010 Between: M/s. Coinbattor Popular Spinning Mills Ltd. & others …Petitioners And M/s. Sri Tirumala Agencies, Gannavaram & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2847 of 2007 8.7.2010