HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5629 OF 2008 DATED.10-11-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 25-06-2008 passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Criminal Revision Petition No.34 of 2007, wherein the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order dated 16-03-2007 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in Calender Case No.618 of 2006. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the sole accused and the first Respondent is the Complainant in C.C. No.618 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The allegations leveled against the accused are as follows : The Complainant filed the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused contending that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 13-10-2004 for his family expenses and also for discharging sundry debts. The accused executed demand promissory note on the even date at Visakhapatnam for the said amount in favour of the Complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and in spite of the demands and requests made by the Complainant the accused did not pay the amount on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, when the Complainant demanded to repay the debt with interest in May, 2006, the accused issued a cheque dated 04-05- 2006 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Visakhapatnam for Rs.1,20,000/- towards part payment along with relevant interest to the complainant in that context. The Complainant presented the same through his banker Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co-operative Bank, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam on the same day. But to his utter surprise, the cheque was dishonoured on 30-05-2006 due to insufficiency of funds in the corresponding account of the accused. The same was informed to the accused demanding to repay the entire amount. The complainant also got issued registered notice dated 12-06-2006 demanding the payment within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was received on the next day by the accused but he (the accused) did not choose to pay the amount. Therefore, the complaint was filed. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Accused that the matter was tried before the learned Magistrate Court where the accused was convicted and the same was confirmed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in the Criminal Revision Petition No.34/2007 passed on 25-06-2006 but the entire evidence on record would not constitute any offence against the Petitioner/Accused to punish him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in fact from the evidence adduced it is clear that the signature of the accused was obtained on blank pronote and cheque by one Mukunda Reddy who was responsible for creating false pronote and cheque filling up necessary contents and both the Courts erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. 5. Therefore, it is to be mainly seen as to : 1) Whether the conviction and sentences were recorded against the accused basing upon the necessary evidence adduced or not? and 2) Whether there are circumstances to quash the proceedings? 6. Points: It is to be mainly examined here that admittedly the pronote and the cheque contain the signatures of the accused and the complainant came into possession of the same. Therefore, unless the accused places sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim it is to be deemed that both the pronote and the cheque are true. When he says that he was due some amount to one Mukunda Reddy and at the time of borrowing the amount the said Mukunda Reddy obtained his signatures on blank pronote and cheque and later he filled up those documents with necessary contents, he has to place necessary evidence to establish those factors, whereas, otherwise it is to be deemed that they are true documents; but he failed to place any evidence in that context which thereby establishes the claim of the complainant. The complainant also placed sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. 7. Taking into consideration the entire record, I do not find any infirmity in the judgements delivered by both the Courts below and therefore, there are no merits in the Petition and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there are no grounds. 8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be resorted to only when there is abuse of process of law and un-necessary harassment of concerned accused. It is not the case here. Therefore there are no merits in the Petition. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 10-11-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 289 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5629 OF 2008 November, 10, 2011 DSH