IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.501 and 509 of 2009 CRIMINAL PETITION No.501 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt K. Lakshmi … PETITIONER(S) And State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION No.509 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt K. Lakshmi … PETITIONER(S) And State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.501 and 509 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both these criminal petitions which are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be disposed of by this common order. 2. Criminal Petition No.501 of 2009 is filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1012 of 2008 and Criminal Petition No.509 of 2009 is filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.926 of 2008. The petitioner in both these petitions is the accused in the above two cases. The second respondent herein filed the said two C.Cs. as private complaints alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in each case. The said cases are pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The cheque amount involved in each case is Rs.50,000/-. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the legal notice dated 30.06.2007 issued by the complainant himself i.e. the second respondent in these petitions would show that the petitioner gave the two cheques each for Rs.50,000/- only by way of security after executing two promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each towards the debt due. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that since the complainant’s notice itself indicates that each cheque was issued only by way of security the bouncing of the said cheques does not create any offence under the Act as there is no subsisting debt in respect of the said cheques. There is no force in this contention. It may be noted that the allegations in the complaint disclose that apart from executing the promissory notes the petitioner also gave two cheques in favour of the complainant and therefore the said cheques though stated to have been issued as security can still be said to be issued in discharge of a subsisting debt. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court given in M.S.NARAYANA MENON vs. STATE OF KERALA[1] in support of his contention that when a cheque is issued as a security no offence can be said to have been made out under Section 138 of the Act if that cheque bounces. This decision is distinguishable on facts and does not help the petitioner. A perusal of the facts in the above decision would show that there the Court found as a fact that the cheque was not issued in respect of a subsisting debt but it was issued as a security in connection with certain transactions between the parties. That is not the case here. The allegations in the complaint show that the petitioner apart from executing the promissory notes in favour of the complainant also issued the two cheques as security for the debts covered by the promissory notes. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made out any case for quashing the proceedings. 5. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. It shall however be open for the petitioner to take all the defences which would be available to him under law and the trial Court shall decide the same without being influenced in any manner by this present order in these quash petitions. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 23rd December, 2010. CVRK [1] (2006) 6 SCC 39