HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3195 & 3198 OF 2010 Date: 09.04.2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3195 OF 2010 Between: Kandru Jaya Lakshmi ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3198 OF 2010 Between: Kandru Aseervadam ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3195 & 3198 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed by wife and husband separately for quashing proceedings in C.C.Nos.90 of 2010 and 91 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Railways, Guntur relating to offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed both the complaints in the lower court on the ground that the accused/petitioners borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- from him and executed pronotes in his favour and that in discharge of the said pronote debts, each of the accused gave one cheque each and that when those cheques presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the accused borrowed only Rs.6,00,000/- and not Rs.9,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent and that in that connection they gave two blank cheques and two blank pronotes and that they were pressed into service. It is further contended that the accused have repaid Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant and that the complainant entered into a memorandum of understanding admitting receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- and promising to return the cheques. There was exchange of notices between the parties after dishonour of those cheques. In the notice, the 2nd respondent disputes the alleged memorandum of understanding or agreement said to have been executed by him. In my opinion, this Court cannot decide this controversy in these two cases involving disputed questions of fact which have to be decided by the trial court after recording of entire evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial of both the cases. This Court in these two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the said disputed questions of fact and decide the same. Therefore, I find that there are no merits in these two petitions. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:09.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3195 & 3198 OF 2010 Date: 09.04.2010 Gk.