THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6608, 6609, 6610, 6611, 6612 and 6613 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in all these petitions is same and these petitions are filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in various cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the present crime, the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.297 of 2010 on the file of Ongole Taluk Police Station and thereupon the police took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet therein. Learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent has obtained the signatures of the petitioner on the cheques in question by force and coercion and that two civil suits are also pending before the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in connection with the same issue. Perused the material placed on record and the complaints in these petitions. On perusal of the complaints, it is evident that none of the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found place in it. The allegation against the petitioner is only to the effect that the cheques issued by him were bounced, as such, he is liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be raised only at the time of trial, and this is not the appropriate stage to interfere with the trial by invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed. In any event, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates the learned trial Judge insists for the same and he shall be properly represented by his counsel. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 04.08.2011 v v