HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7545 of 2007 Date: 22-04-2010 Between: M/s Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd. ……….. Petitioner and The State of A.P. and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7545 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.925 of 2006 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. He filed the complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner herein committed the ofences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’). The brief case of the second respondent is that himself and the petitioner are known to each other through their business transactions and that the second respondent used to supply timber for the constructions made by the petitioner and that the as per the request of the petitioner, he had supplied teakwood, door and window frames on various dates from 14-03-2006 to 05-06-2006 and the total cost of the material supplied by him is Rs.3,16,844/-. It is also the case of the second respondent that having acknowledge the credit bills, the petitioner is said to have issued cheques bearing Nos.427787 to 427792, all dated 20-06-2006 in his favour for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each and the total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, in favour of the second respondent. It is also the case of the second respondent that when the said cheques were presented on 21-06- 2006 through his banker, State Bank of Hyderabad, Shapur Nagar, Hyderabad, they were returned unpaid on 22-06-2006 by the banker of the petitioner with an endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. The second respondent got issued a legal notice, dated 19-07-2006 through registered post with acknowledgement due to the petitioner for the recovery of the legally enforceable debt. It is alleged that the petitioner got returned those notices with an endorsement “not claimed returned to sendor”. Alleging that the petitioner had committed the offences stated supra, the complaint has been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent had approached the petitioner to purchase flat No.C-202 in the apartments of the building constructed by him and that the second respondent though agreed to supply the teakwood never supplied the same and in the above circumstances, the petitioner had sent notice on 18-06-2006 to the second respondent stating inter alia that he failed to supply the teakwood and therefore, they are canceling the cheques issued in favour of the second respondent and also instructing the bank to stop the payment. It is also his submission that though the notice was sent to the second respondent, it was returned with an endorsement that the second respondent was absent continuously for seven days. It is also his submission that when stop payment notice has been issued, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Admittedly, the stop payment notice has not been served on the second respondent. Moreover the notice was issued on 18-06-2006 and the cheques were presented in the bank on 21-06-2006. There is an endorsement that payment stopped by the drawer. In the above circumstances, it is for the petitioner to place all the documents relied on by him in his defence before the trial Court and to take specific plea as to whether he had issued stop payment notice prior to the presentation of the cheques or not and whether the said letter had been reached the second respondent or not. It is not desirable to discuss the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the parties in these proceedings. There are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 22-04-2010 YCR