HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9717 OF 2009 Date: 27-09-2010 Between: Kunta Ravinder Kumar. --- Petitioner/Accused. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad and another --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9717 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) in C.C. No.191 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudivada. Cheque drawn by the accused in favour of the second respondent/complainant was dishonoured by the banker for ‘insufficient funds’. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per allegations in the complaint, the said cheque represents part of security deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- payable by the complainant to the accused and that when the complainant himself committed breach of conditions contained in the Memorandum of understanding, he is not entitled for refund of the security deposit amount and in turn he is not entitled to present the cheque for encashment. The petitioner’s counsel had drawn attention of this Court to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26-02-2008 standing in between both the parties. In my opinion, the questions as to who committed breach of the said MOU and whether amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by the complainant to the accused is liable to be refunded or not, are matters which have to be appreciated by the trial Court after both the parties leading their respective evidence during trial in the lower Court. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot undertake the said exercise in this petition. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that statutory notice prior to filing of the complaint was addressed by the complainant to Door No.7-1-282/C/A/1 and H. No.4-17, Pothu Raju Palli, Toopran – 502 334, to a wrong address instead of addressing the notice to the accused to H. No.7-1-292, Balkampet, Hyderabad, which address is disclosed in the MOU. He placed reliance on Shashi Finance Corporation Vs. Super Shine Abrasives Private Limited[1] of this Court wherein it was held that When the notice was addressed to a wrong address and it was returned un-served, then there is no valid and proper service of notice contemplated under Section 138 (d) of the Act. 3) There is no dispute that notice in this case was addressed to some other address than the address mentioned in the MOU. From that fact alone, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that notice was addressed to a wrong address. It is a matter for evidence to find out as to why and how the statutory notice was addressed to Toopran address instead of Balkampet address of the accused. It would be premature for this Court to conclude that the notice was sent to a wrong address. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in this Case. 4) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 27-09-2010. DSH [1] 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 634 (AP)