IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3882 OF 2011 DATE:09.06.2011 Between: Chenna Reddy Srinivasulu Reddy .... Petitioner And: The State of A.p., rep. By PP and another ....Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3882 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the accused in the Criminal Case i.e., C.C.No.296 of 2010 on the file of the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the said case. The offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act). The dishonour of cheque pertains to a sum of Rs.14.00 lakhs. The plea of the petitioner is that according to the complainant he gave him only Rs.10.00 lakhs but took a cheque for Rs.14.00 lakhs and this itself suggests that the transaction is a false one and there is no existing debt. It may be noted whether there is a debt in existence or not on the date of the issue of the cheque is a question of fact which has to be decided in the trial of the case and not in this petition. Added to this, there is a presumption. According to Section 139 of the Act, a rebutable presumption operates in favour of the complainant regarding the existence of a subsisting debt and hence, this presumption is rebutable by the accused and he has to rebut the presumption leading by evidence only in the trial of the case. Thus, this is a controversy relates to a pure question of fact and that cannot be decided in these proceedings. Another contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel is that the cheque was given for a future liability but that is not the case of the complainant. The complainant specifically states that there was an existing debt and that question has to be decided in the trial of the case only. The petitioner’s counsel relied upon a decision of High Court of Karnataka reported in Uppinangady Grama Panchayath, Puttur v. P. Narayana Prabhu[1]. This decision dealt with a case where a cheque was issued for not an existing debt or liability. In that view of the matter, the High Court of Karnataka held that the prosecution for dishonour of the cheque was not warranted. That is not the case here and the circumstances of this case have already been set out supra. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere in the matter. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J Date: 09.06.2011. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3882 OF 2011 DATE:09.06.2011 Gk. [1] 2006(CRI.L.J.3141