IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 5869 of 2009 Between: B.Krupakar . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 5865 of 2009 Between: K.Vendanam . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5865 & 5869 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : Heard Sri D.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. No notice is ordered to the 2nd respondent in both the cases as the matters are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2) The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C. No.257 of 2007 and C.C.No.259 of 2007 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and come up with these two criminal petitions with identical allegations. The petitioners contend that as the debts were time barred, they were not legally enforceable debts and that the cheques allegedly issued by them were not issued by them. The petitioners also contend that they did not receive any loans from the 2nd respondent bank and did not receive any movables from the alleged supplier. In effect and substance, the petitioners are claiming the allegations of the 2nd respondent in both the cases to be false and the documents to be fabricated. Whether the claims of the 2nd respondent and the availment of the loan facilities by the petitioners and issuance of cheques in question towards discharge of subsisting legal liability and the dishonour of cheques are true or the denials of the petitioners are correct, have to be investigated into during the trial by the trial Court on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before the Court by both the parties and conclusions of fact have to be accordingly arrived at by the trial Court. In this restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot indulge in any such deep fact finding enquiry and hence, matters are to be left open to be determined on merits by the trial Court by not entertaining these two criminal petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which jurisdiction is available only in the rarest of rare cases and definitely not on disputed questions of fact. 3) Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 16, 2009 KSH