IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7658 of 2009 Between: Suryapaga Ravi Kumar . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7658 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri Kurra Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. No notice is ordered to the 2nd respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2) The petitioner is facing prosecution in C.C. No.293 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, ongole in respect of an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the bouncing of the cheque said to have been issued as a guarantor in respect of a chit transaction. The petitioner claims herein that the 2nd respondent never intimated to him the default committed by the original subscriber to the chit for whom he stood guarantee. The petitioner also complains that he never issued cheque towards discharging of the liability of the original subscriber of the chit and if a third party handed over the cheque to the 2nd respondent, it could not have been misused and the petitioner also states that he gave a complaint against the original borrower for misusing the cheque kept as collateral security with the husband of the original borrower. Thus, the petitioner raises various questions of fact in opposition to the prosecution initiated by the 2nd respondent, but the copy of the cheque filed by the petitioner itself shows that the cheque which appears to have been signed by the petitioner also appears to have been straight away issued in favour of the 2nd respondent for the amounts specified therein. If so, the disputed questions of fact about the liability of the petitioner as claimed by the 2nd respondent or the non liability of the petitioner for the reasons claimed by him have to be gone into by the trial Court on merits on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it and the same cannot be the subject matter of any deep fact finding probe by this Court as it is a restricted summary enquiry under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, the criminal petition has to fail. 3) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 18, 2009 KSH