IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8610 OF 2008 Between: Malladi Koteswara Reddy ..... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. Gorle Tirupathi Naidu ..... Respondent/Complainant 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents/Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.278 of 2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present criminal petition may be stated as follows: It is alleged that the petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the first respondent/complainant on 07.07.2008 in the presence of Samarotu Suryanarayana and promised to repay the said amount after third week of September, 2008. To discharge the said debt, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.614907, dated 07.07.2008, in favour of the first respondent/complainant. When the first respondent /complainant presented the cheque, it was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. After giving statutory legal notice, dated 15.10.2008, issued by the first respondent/complainant to the petitioner/accused, the complaint is lodged. Challenging the same, the present quash petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused contended that there is civil dispute pending between the parties in O.S.No.124 of 2008, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Salur, for perpetual injunction; that the petitioner/accused has not issued any cheque and the first respondent/complainant has no capacity to lend the amount; and therefore, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant contended that the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused are questions of facts which cannot be decided by exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; that after giving statutory legal notice, dated 15.10.2008, the complaint is filed; and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, then only the question of quashing of the complaint would arise. The allegations in the complaint would clearly go to show that the petitioner/accused issued the cheque in question in favour of the first respondent/complainant for discharge of a loan and when the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. After giving statutory legal notice, the complaint is lodged. Whether the first respondent/complainant has got sufficient means to lend money to the petitioner/accused or not, whether civil disputes are there between the parties or not, are the matters which are required to be decided after enquiry in the trial Court. Those disputed questions of fact cannot be decided and determined by exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the same. 6. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 9th October, 2009. KL Note: CC by one week (B/o) KL