IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8684 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Sambidi Sekhar Reddy S/o. Malla Reddy …. Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8684 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner Sambidi Sekhar Reddy seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.96 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District. 2. A private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’) is filed by the de facto complainant K. Lalu – respondent No.2 herein, against the accused – petitioner, alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.8,43,750/- from him, towards hand loan to meet his family and personal requirements. On demand by respondent No.2, petitioner issued a cheque on 01-11-2006 bearing No.156828 for Rs.8,43,750/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Devarakonda Branch, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District in favour of respondent No.2 and when he presented the cheque in the Bank, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” and after issuing statutory legal notice, respondent No.2 filed the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the cheque in question, is a colour Xerox copy of the cheque leaf but not the original cheque and that, there was a mutual understanding between the petitioner and respondent No.2 with regard to a sale agreement transaction and that the question of borrowing amount from respondent No.2 does not arise and that, the petitioner was having sufficient bank balance in his personal and family accounts and therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the orders under this code. The allegations in the complaint, if taken as true and correct at this stage, made out a prima facie case of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, question of quashing the complaint does not arise. The allegations of the complaint would go to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,43,750/- towards hand loan and towards discharge of the same, he issued a cheque on 01-11-2006 bearing No.156828 for Rs.8,43,750/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Devarakonda Branch, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District and when it was presented, it was returned with an endorsement insufficient funds. A notice was given by respondent No.2, for which, a reply was also given by the petitioner. 5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are pure questions of fact, which cannot be resolved and determined, exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the allegations made out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and hence, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J December 02, 2009. KTL