AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.NI.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapalli.
Heard Mr P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint invoking the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapalli against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the "NI Act"). However, respondent No. 2 has not given the specific dates in the cause of action, and he has not filed the postal receipt dated 24.12.2022 along with the complaint, though he mentioned it in the list of documents filed along with the complaint. The learned trial Court ought to have returned the complaint on the ground of non-enclosure of the requisite document and non-mentioning of the relevant dates in the cause of action; on the other hand, taken cognizance and issued summons. Hence, ST.C.NI.No.5 of 2023 is liable to be quashed.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, especially the averments made in the complaint and the list of documents mentioned therein, it reveals that the petitioner had issued cheque bearing No.809696, dated 06.11.2022, and the same was returned with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The respective bank issued a memo on 13.12.2022. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued a legal notice on 21.12.2022. The list of documents column in the complaint mentions that he enclosed five documents, one of which is the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment dated 24.12.2022.. Whether respondent No.2 filed the postal receipt along with the complaint, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a disputed fact, and the petitioner is entitled to raise the said ground before the learned trial Court. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is liable to be rejected on the ground that respondent No. 2 has not mentioned specific dates in Paragraph No.7 is concerned, respondent No.2 has specifically mentioned that the cause of action arose on 06.11.2022, when the petitioner issued the cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured, and thereafter respondent No. 2 issued a legal notice and filed the complaint on 13.12.2022. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is within the prescribed period of limitation. Merely because specific dates were not mentioned in the cause of action is not a ground to seek quashing of the proceedings, and the petitioner is entitled to raise the said contention before the trial Court at the appropriate time.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any grounds to quash the proceedings while exercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner/accused in S.T.C.NI No.5 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapalli, on the ground that the petitioner is a software engineer and the matter before the trial Court had not yet ripened for trial. He further submitted that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court whenever his presence is required and he will represent the matter through his counsel on every date of hearing. Unless this Court dispenses with the appearance of the petitioner, he will be put to great hardship.
Taking into considerations the peculiar facts and circumstances and occupation of the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner/accused in S.T.C.NI No.5 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapalli, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that he shall be represented through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. If the presence of the petitioner is required, he shall appear before the trial Court. In case of his non-appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.