IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1344 OF 2007. Date:08.02.2010 Between:- M/s.Swal Computers Ltd., having its office at Secunderabad, rep.by its Managing Director and Authorised Signatory, Ch.K.V.Sai Kumar and another ..Petitioners And M/s.Innominds Software Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, having its administrative office at Hyderabad, rep.by its Manager-Administration and G.P.A.Holder P.Viswanath and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 (A1 and A2) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.901 of 2002 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (re-designated as XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Subject matter of the case is dishonour of three cheques issued by A2 as Managing Director of A1 company to the complainant/1st respondent herein. On reading of allegations in the complaint, it is evident that the cheques were presented twice by the complainant and they were dishonoured twice by banker of the accused. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that after first dishonour of the cheques, the complainant gave statutory notice by registered post to the accused and thereafter, did not pursue the matter by way of filing complaint before the Magistrate. After second dishonour of the cheques, the complainant issued notice to the accused and when amounts covered by those three cheques were not paid by the accused, the complainant filed the present complaint in the lower Court. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that after first dishonour, there was statutory notice and it afforded cause of action for the complainant to file case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused and that as he failed to avail the opportunity of filing the complaint after first dishonour i.e., after accrual of first cause of action, the complainant is debarred from filing the present complaint in the lower Court after second dishonour and second statutory notice. But, there is no indication in the complaint that after first dishonour of cheques, there was any statutory notice given by the complainant to the accused. In the complaint, it was stated that intimation about this dishonour of cheques was given to the accused by the complainant and that the accused requested the complainant to present the cheques again so that the cheques will be honoured. It is not stated in the complaint whether the said intimation was in writing or an oral intimation. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the complainant has suppressed the first statutory notice issued by him to the accused. Not only in body of the complaint but also in list of documents appended to the complaint, the complainant did not disclose any statutory notice of dishonour issued by him to the accused after the first dishonour. 4. In this petition, the complainant’s counsel filed certain material papers and contended that the accused have got copy of notice sent by the complainant after first dishonour. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court may not be in a position to receive any documents in support of defence to be raised by the accused for the complaint. It is a matter which the petitioners/accused have to prove during trial that the complainant has issued statutory notice of dishonour to the accused after first dishonour of cheques. No documents which are not part of material placed before the lower Court, can be taken in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for appreciation of point raised by the petitioners in this petition. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to place all material before the lower Court during trial, which material is stated to have been suppressed by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore, it may not be correct for this Court to go into the question in this petition whether there is any legal bar for the complainant to file the complaint in the lower Court based on disputed questions of fact. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th February 2010 AMD