HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4207 of 2008 Date : 23.11.2011 Between : Sudha Anki Reddy. …..Petitioner And Yeddula Pulla Reddy & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4207 of 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in C.C.No.218 of 2006, seeking to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. pending on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Proddatur. The aforesaid case is registered on the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.01.2006 from the complainant/ 1st respondent for his necessities and for development of school, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also borrowed a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on the same day i.e. 10.01.2006 and executed two promissory notes in favour of the complainant. As the complainant needed money, he demanded the petitioner to repay the amount borrowed from him. Then the petitioner has issued a cheque bearing No.0711851, dated 04.03.2006, of Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Kadapa, for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, as Correspondent of Maharshi Vidya Nikethan, Kadapa. It is stated in the complaint that when the 1st respondent/complainant presented the said cheque in his Bank i.e. Proddatur Co-operative Town Bank Limited on 04.05.2006 for collection, it was returned with an endorsement “Not sufficient funds”. On the aforesaid allegations, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.05.2006 and alleging that inspite of receiving notice, there is no response from the petitioner herein, the complaint was filed. In this criminal petition, it is alleged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the amounts were received from the 1st respondent/complainant in the capacity of the Correspondent of the school for development of school by name Maharshi Vidya Nikethan, and further, cheque was also issued from the account of the institute, and in that view of the matter, no complaint is maintainable against the petitioner, who is an individual. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jugesh Sehgal Vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent/State that the amounts were borrowed by the petitioner in his individual capacity and the cheque was also issued from his account, but merely as he described his designation as Correspondent of the School, it cannot be said that no complaint is maintainable against him. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the copy of the complaint. In the aforesaid complaint, by making the petitioner as accused, it is pleaded that he has borrowed the money for his necessities and for development of school. A perusal of the provision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shows that in order to proceed for the offence under the said Section, the cheque must have been issued by the person in respect of the account maintained by him. In this case, as the account is maintained by the petitioner herein, who has issued the cheque, it attracts the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, it is to be noticed that the cheque issued by the petitioner is describing him as Correspondent of Maharshi Vidya Nikethan. It is also stated that as on the date of issue of the cheque, the petitioner was not the Correspondent of the School. Even such question is a triable issue which has to be gone into at the stage of trial. Therefore, whether the account is of different school or the cheque is issued in his individual capacity and whether the petitioner is maintaining such account or not, are the matters which are to be decided after full pledged trial. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jugesh Sehgal, relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, would not render any assistance in support of his argument, so as to quash the proceedings at this stage, by entertaining this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd November 2011 ajr [1] (2009) 14 SCC 683