HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION.No.5792 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No. 6 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam registered under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner is the accused and the 1st respondent is the de facto complainant in the calendar case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed before the trial Court. The facts, which led to the filing of the complaint, are as follows: The complainant is the Manager of Vijaya Filling Station at Khammam. The accused is running buses, having tie up with A.P.S.R.T.C. for hiring buses and she used to fill the diesel for the buses from the complainant’s filling station. Taking advantage of the acquaintance with the complainant, the accused started getting diesel on credit basis. When the accused was due to pay an amount of Rs.1,09,000/- he issued cheque for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh bearing No.721630 drawn in favour of the complainant. But, however, when the cheque was presented in the bank concerned, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Then the complainant got issued legal notice dated 08.11.2005 calling upon the accused to pay the due amount. But as there was no response from the accused, the complainant filed the calendar case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC. The police after investigating into the matter filed charge sheet in the case. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the complainant denying the pleas taken by the accused. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that there has been no enforceable debt between the accused and the complainant as she has paid the entire amount due to the complainant and the complainant gave wrong address in the complaint for service of notice on the accused and in view of the same, the notice sent was returned un served and therefore, the Calendar Case is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that absolutely there is no basis to say that the amount due was repaid by the accused to the complainant, and further, at this stage, it cannot be considered as to whether wrong address was given by the complainant for serving the notice upon the accused and the questions involved in the case are purely questions of fact and therefore, apparently, there is no abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Now it has to be examined as to whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against the accused in the calendar case. There is material in support of the claim of the complainant. It is also pertinent to note here that the contentions of the accused that she paid the entire due amount to the complainant and further that the complainant gave wrong address for serving relevant notice upon the accused are purely questions of fact to be decided on the basis of evidence to be recorded, whereas, at this stage the merits of the case cannot be considered. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed as it is devoid of merits. In the result, the petition is dismissed. G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Dt. 07.04.2011 Kvr/lvl HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION.No.5792 of 2008 Dt. 07.04.2011