THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1960 OF 2010 Date: 28.12.2011 Between: P.Srivalli …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1960 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Ramesh Babu, the learned counsel for petitioner, the second respondent-in-person and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner herein is accused in C.C.No.511 of 2009 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (trial court). The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act). The petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the above case. 3. The first point raised is that the complaint was filed beyond time. It is however brought to my notice by the second respondent that the complaint was filed with a condone delay petition and that was condoned by the learned Magistrate and that order has become final as it has not been challenged and this is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the point of limitation must fail. 4. Then coming to the other point of the petitioner, it pertains to the merits of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various contentions regarding the acquaintance between the petitioner and the second respondent and also the transactions between them and the need for the petitioner to give the cheque in question. These contentions relate to the merits of the matter and also touch the question whether the alleged debt is legally enforceable or not. These are questions to be decided only on evidence and cannot be gone into in this petition. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner however relied upon a judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.5767 of 2010 dated 25.3.2011 which pertains to another case filed by M/s.Elite Projects, represented by its Managing Partner Sri B.V.S.Manohar Rao against Smt.P.Bala Tripura Sundari and Smt.P.V.Kameswari. That case also pertains to an offence under Section 138 of the Act but that was quashed by this Court. It is not made clear how the merits of that case can be compared to this case and it cannot help the petitioner to quash the present case. In these circumstances, it follows that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the relief for quashing the case is rejected. 6. At the end, the learned counsel for petitioner made a representation for dispensing with the presence of the petitioner before the trial court on every date of hearing as the petitioner is a lady aged about 27 years and is a private employee. In the circumstances having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a lady, her presence is dispensed with before the trial court for every date of hearing and she can be represented by a counsel subject to the discretion of the trial court to order her presence as and when it considers it necessary. 7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 28th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1960 OF 2010 DATE: 28.12.2011