THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7029 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner approached this court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.297 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, wherein he is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the entire transaction in the present case took place in Hyderabad, whereas the complaint is filed in Kurnool District. Learned counsel further contended that the agreement of sale, dated 28.11.2005, was executed by one Y.R.K.Murthy and the petitioner/accused in favour of Vardhan Developers represented by its Managing Director P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, but not in the individual capacity of the complainant, whereas the present complaint is filed by the complainant in his individual capacity, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the record shows that the cheque in question was presented and dishonoured in Kurnool and the cause of action arose only at Kurnool. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in invoking the jurisdiction of Kurnool Court. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a reading of the complaint discloses that the accused and one Y.R.K.Murthy have entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant as early as on 28.11.2005, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.7.00 out of the land admeasuring Ac.14.02 in Sy.No.1011/20 of Moosapet village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpalli, and pursuant thereto, the accused received advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, but subsequently he issued the cheque in question on 15.12.2009 towards discharge of advance amount received by him. Even if the petitioner is aggrieved over the agreement of sale, he is at liberty to raise all his contentions at the time of trial before the trial court. Thus, this court is of the view that this is a matter that requires trial, and as such not inclined to interfere with trial. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 16.08.2011 v v