HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1414 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash C.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Medak. Facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint in C.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- Special Mobile Court, Medak, against the petitioner herein, for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”), alleging that he advanced a sum of Rs.95,000/- to the petitioner at his request. Thereafter, inspite of several demands made by him, the petitioner did not repay the said amount. Finally, on 27.6.2007 the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.003473 dated 27.06.2007 for Rs.95,000/- drawn on the Kothapally Farmers Service Co-op. Society Limited in his favour and when he presented the said cheque in his banker for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds in the account of accused”. Hence, he got issued a legal notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the amount covered by the said cheque. The petitioner knowing fully well that there is no amount in his bank account, with a dishonest intention, issued the said cheque. Hence the complaint. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points to quash the complaint: The petitioner did not maintain any account with the Kothapally Farmers Service Co-op. Society Limited, Kothapally, Medak District and the account being maintained with the said Society is only a loan disbursal account and the alleged dishonour is not by a specified banker. Hence, the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not at all attracted. There is no such word in the cheque as to ‘pay to’ and the same is not mentioned in the instrument. Hence, it cannot be considered as instrument, in view of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The legal notice dated 23.11.2007 issued to the petitioner was returned by the postal authorities without service and with an endorsement that addressee absent continuously for seven days. Thus, the deemed date of service of notice if any is 03.12.2007 and the stipulated period of 15 days for payment of dishonoured cheque expires on 18.12.2007, whereas the complaint was filed on 13.12.2007. Hence, the complaint is premature. As far as the first two contentions are concerned, it is evident from the said instrument that the instrument belongs to S.B. Account No.431 of the Kothapally Farmers Service Co-op. Society Ltd., Kothapally, Medak District, and there is a word ‘pay to S. Shashidhar Reddy or Bearer’. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the present instrument is a cheque in the eye of law. The same cannot be disproved in the present case. As far as the last contention is concerned, it is seen from the complaint that the notice was issued on 23.11.2007 and the same was not served and the postal authorities returned the un-served cover to the 2nd respondent and the same was filed along with the complaint as document No.5. Therefore, the petitioner cannot argue with regard to limitation. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 5th August, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1414 of 2009 (Dismissed) 5th August, 2010 CBS