THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2050 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of further proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.1 of 2009. According to the complainant, he is doing contract works and that the accused is also a contractor and the complainant has taken certain items of work from the accused pertaining to Kalwakurthy Lift Irrigation Scheme and for the work that has been executed, accused issued a cheque for Rs.5,18,131/-, which was ascertained to be due, and when the cheque was presented through the Andhra Bank, Kothakota for encashment it was returned with a memo to the effect that the drawer has instructed the bank to stop payment. The complainant issued a legal notice, dated 18.11.2008, for which the accused gave a reply, dated 01.12.2008. Thereafter, respondent herein filed the complaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would mainly contend that as per the agreement between the accused and the complainant, the cheque was to be encashed after completion of the work, and without completing the work there is no legally enforceable debt. He would submit that on 20.10.2008, petitioner issued a legal notice to the complainant stating that part of the work as per the agreement was still to be executed and therefore the complainant may not present the cheque for encashment and he may present the same only after completion of the entire work. 5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant, on the other hand, would contend that the cheque for the ascertained sum of Rs.5,18,131/- was issued in respect of the work which was already completed and if any more work remained to be executed as per the agreement, the remedy for the accused is otherwise but he cannot instruct the bank to stop the payment. 6. The issuance of the subject cheque, dated 31.5.2008, by the petitioner-accused is not disputed. Petitioner also admits that he issued instructions to the bank to stop payment. He, however, seeks to justify the said conduct on the ground that without completing the entire work as per the terms of the agreement, the complainant is not entitled to present the same for encashment and therefore there is no legally enforceable debt. Having issued the cheque for an ascertained amount of Rs.5,18,131/-, the accused prima facie cannot stop the payment. The question as to whether or not there was any such agreement to the effect that the cheque shall not be presented for encashment after completion of the entire work and even if such agreement exists, whether the same is valid and enforceable, are matters to be considered during the course of trial. For the present, it is suffice to say that the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act are prima facie attracted and there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd December, 2011. Tsy