IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, the 9th day of September, Two Thousand and Ten PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5090 of 2007 Between: P.Venkataramana … Petitioner And Sri Datla Venkata Rama Raju and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5090 of 2007 O R D E R : - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner, to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.406 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kakinada, filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. The complaint allegations shows that for due discharge of the amount borrowed by the petitioner, the petitioner issued a cheque on 07.07.2004 bearing No.3786407 on State Bank of India, Vijayanagaram in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards part payment of the debt. When the cheque was presented by the complainant with his banker- Punjab National Bank, Kakinada, the same was returned by the State Bank of India with a memo, dated 14.07.2004, stating ‘Account Closed’ and on receipt of the information from the complainant’s bank on 17.07.2004 along with the memo, he got issued a legal notice on 06.08.2004 demanding the payment, which was received by the petitioner and he sent a reply on 18.08.2004 and thereafter the present complaint has been filed for the offence under Section 138 N.I.Act, which is now sought to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner closed his account in the month of August, 2000 itself. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.12 of 2007 for recovery of money, which was pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Since the account is closed as early as in the year 2000 itself, the issuance of the cheque in the year 2004, does not arise. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. This court do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that whether the account was closed and was not in operation is a matter of evidence to be produced as a defence before the trial court. Except stating that the allegations mentioned in the complaint are not correct, the petitioner has not denied about the issuance of the cheque to the complainant. When the complaint itself is filed in the year 2004, filing of a civil suit after receipt of the summons in the C.C. by the petitioner, cannot be a ground to invalidate the proceedings initiated by the complainant against the petitioner. Further, this court also noticed that there is no stay of the proceedings from 16.11.2007 onwards. In view of the same, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 12th August 2010 lmv