THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4005 and 4015 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed on similar set of facts and the parties are also common, as such, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts pleaded in Criminal Petition No.4005 of 2009. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007 filed against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda. It is the case of the second respondent/complainant that the first petitioner is the Company and the second petitioner is its Chief Executive Officer and Manager. It is his further case that in view of acquaintance of the second petitioner with him, the second petitioner for the purpose of the first petitioner Company, has obtained a hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 24.09.2006 with a condition to repay the same within a period of two (2) days in the presence of one Md.Jalaluddin, Son of Khajamoinuddin, Resident of Miryalguda. It is his further case that after two days, when there was a demand for repayment, the second petitioner requested him and agreed to pay the amount after two months with interest @ 2%. It is his further case that even after two months, amount was not paid and the second petitioner asked him to come to Hyderabad for payment as such he approached the second respondent. Even then, he was not paid. It is his further case that the second petitioner assured to pay the due amount with interest and travelling expenses, which incurred from Miryalguda to Hyderabad and on such calculation, the second petitioner agreed to pay the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.78,400/- + Rs.225/- and accordingly, issued two cheques for Rs.2,71,450/- and Rs.4,07,175/-. It is his further case that when he presented both the cheques, the same were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. It is also his case that in view of the said dishonour of cheques, in spite of service of notice, as the payment was not paid, he filed the complaints alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act. Based on the said complaints, the learned Magistrate by recording the sworn statements of the second respondent has taken cognizance of the said offences. There upon, the cases were numbered as C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute is of civil nature as the second respondent is claiming interest, travelling expenses etc. In this view of the matter, there is no case made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act. It is also argued that the second respondent has not issued any notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Act, as such, the proceedings in C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the petitioners borrowed the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- but never paid back the same. When there was insistence for returning of the said money, the second petitioner assured to pay the same with interest and thereby, issued two cheques but when they were presented, the same were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. It is further submitted that though a notice was issued on behalf of the second respondent by registered post, the same was unclaimed on 03.09.2007. In view of the same, it can be said that there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007. I have heard the learned counsel and perused copies of the complaints filed by the second respondent. Merely because it is alleged that the petitioners have agreed to pay the due amount along with interest and travelling expenses that by itself is no ground for quashing the proceedings against them in C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007, when it is the allegation of the second respondent that the cheques issued by the petitioners were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Further, The second respondent specifically stated that the notice sent to the petitioners by registered post was unclaimed on 03.09.2007. At the same time, from a reading of the complaint, it is clear that when a registered notice was sent to the second respondent after the cheques were dishonoured, the same was unclaimed on 03.09.2007. If there is an endorsement ‘unclaimed’ on the registered notice, time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that the same has to be construed as service. Whether there is proper service or not is a matter which has to be gone into during trial but the same is no ground to entertain these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007 at this stage. A reading of the contents of the complaint makes it clear that it attracts the provisions under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these Criminal Petitions for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.Nos.852 and 853 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda, at this stage. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st DECEMBER, 2011. kvni