HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3129 of 2008 O R D E R: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in CC No. 979 of 2002 on the file of the III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.4.2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No. 140 of 2007 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and consequently summon the Branch Manager, A.P.State Finance Corporation, Mahabubnagar to examine him as DW-1. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant in CC No. 972 of 2002. The petitioner took the premises of the respondent on lease and issued post-dated cheques towards lease amount. Consequent on dishonour of the cheques issued by the petitioner, the respondent presented a complaint before the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, after issuing a statutory notice. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as CC No. 979 of 2002. The petitioner/accused filed a petition being Crl.M.P.No. 7063 of 2007 U/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the Branch Manager, A.P.S.F.C, Mahabubnagar for production of records of the respondent company from January, 2001 to April, 2002 regarding payments received by APSFC and also correspondence between APSFC and the respondent company. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that the alleged records are in no way relevant for the adjudication of the case. 3. For better appreciation I may refer to the relevant portion of the order dated 01-10-20078 passed by the learned III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and it is thus: “8. The present petition filed that the cheques which were given in favour of APSFC by the respondent/complainant towards installments were dishonoured and for that ;summoning of Branch Manager of APSFC is necessary. In spite regarding issuing of Ex.P5 Cheque and also point for consideration in the main complaint is whether Ex.P5 cheque is issued for legally enforceable debt or not. Now there is no subject matter that cheques were given in favour of APSFC by the respondent/complainant towards instalments were dishonoured. Hence I am of the opinion that issuing of summoned of Branch Manger, APSFC is not necessary and petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ” 4. The unsuccessful petitioner-accused carried the matter in revision before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Hyderabad, being Crl.R.P.No. 140/2007. The learned Judge on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on re-appreciating the material brought on record did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the trial court and accordingly dismissed the revision petition. Assailing the said order, the present criminal petition has been filed by the accused with the prayer stated supra. 5. Heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent-complainant suppressed the material facts of obtaining loan from the APSFC at the time of leasing out the premises and the said suppression of material fact is required to be proved by summoning the person concerned with APSFC. A further submission has been made that the records from APSFC are relevant for proper adjudication of the issue involved in cheque bouncing case being CC No. 979 of 2002. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the order impugned in the petition. 8. The petitioner obtained the mill owned by the 1st respondent complainant on lease and issued post-dated cheques towards lease amount. Consequent on the dishonour of the cheques issued by the petitioner, proceedings have been initiated by the 1st respondent complainant for the offence u/sec. 138 of N I Act, after issuing the statutory notice. Availment of loan by 1st respondent from APSFC and his failure to pay the installments are in no way relevant for adjudication of the cheque bounce case initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. 9. I deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the order and it reads thus: “3. In an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque, the court is expected to see whether the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt/liability by the accused. It is irrelevant before the criminal court as to under what circumstances the accused could not pay the amount covered by the cheque and could not honour the cheque. It is not the case of accused/petitioner that he surrendered possession of the mill to the complainant after canceling lese agreement between the parties. So long as lease agreement between the accused and the complainant was subsisting and so long as the accused did not surrender possession of the mill to the complainant, liability of the accused to pay lease amount continues. The circumstances under which the accused could not honour cheque, are extraneous and irrelevant considerations in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. Therefore, the lower court rightly refused to summon Branch Manager, APSFC, Mahabubnagar Branch for examining as witness in the case. 4. Further the case pending in the lower court is of the year 2002. At fag end of the case when the case is posted for arguments, the accused came up with the present applications. I see absolutely no merits as well as bonafidies in the petition filed by the accused in the lower court. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.” 10. The trial court as well as the revisional court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to summon the records from APSFC. The order passed by the trial court as confirmed by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers U/Sec. 482 cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 11-06-2008 shall stand vacated. __________ 30-07-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3129 of 2008 DATED: 30-07-2010