CRLP/1063/2024 of Nagubandi Nagalaxmi Vs State of Telangana on 4 November 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.N| Act No.5448 of 2022 on the file of XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

2. Heard M/s.P.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.Narender Raj, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of "Thrikara Pharma" and doing business in pharmaceuticals (Generic) investing her own funds and also by obtaining necessary licenses from the concerned authorities. Respondent No.2 proposed to join the business of the petitioner and had invested Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to share 50% of the profits. Both of them entered into a memorandum of understanding. Due to pandemic and serious lockdown, the business could not be operated successfully. As such, petitioner and respondent No.2 agreed to dissolve the firm and to get the firm stock in trade etc. evaluated through authorized e uditor. After audit of accounts, profit and loss arrived at was to t e shared in the ratio of 50:50. The petitioner had kept signed tr ank cheque book with the respondent No.2 enabling her to r ranage the business and also to look after payments. H< wever, the respondent No.2 presented five cheques claiming he r amount of Rs.8,85,000/- which were to be presented after ther audit of the accounts and the same were dishonoured for wa tt of funds Respondent No.2 got issued a legal notice in the ":me of "Sai medicals" which was run by husband of petitionr: instead of "Thrikara Pharma" run by the petitioner herself. l'l twever, the petitioner got issued a reply notice denying the ara ,rments and allegations

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subnri s that the allegations made are baseless and the complaint is liable to be quashed. The provisions of Section 138 Negotiabl,l lnstruments Act are not complied with, as no notice was sent to ire petitioner to her address. The respondent No.2 had retain€,( the signed blank cheque book and without adverting to Ie lerms of agreement, arriving at an amount and presenting cheques for amount before conducting audit of the accourrl ; is not in accordance with law. As per Memorandum of under ;tanding' the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- invested by respondent No.2 was freezed for six months and after six months, she shall receive profits for the next ten months

5. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in M/s.Makara Jyothi Chits Pvt. Ltd v. Mr.Kishore Ronald Rebellol, wherein it was held that "Ihe complainant has not issued the legal notice to the accused as required under section 138(b) of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881" and the High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that it is admitted fact that the petitioner has sent reply to the notice issued, though it is averred that the notice is given in the name of "Sai Medicals" run by husband of the petitioner instead of "Thrikara Pharma" run by herself. He placed reliance upon the following decisions-

1. Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.2, passed by Allahabad High Court. ' zot3 NCK C 42924 ' :ol t (l) Ciuit Court Cases 0 I 56:202 I ( I ) Criminal Coun Cascs 0199

2. Decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arm Group Enterprises Ltd. v. Waldorf Restaurant 3

3. Decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Co rrt in HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A.Abida and Anr.a , wherein in 6rr ra 10 it was held that - "Whether the cheques were given as secur/ ty or not, or whether there was outstanding liability c- not is a questian of fact which could have been d termined only by the trial Coud after recording evidet'ce of the pafties. tn our opinion, the High Courl shoulc not have expressed its view on the disputed guestionr of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code o' Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the >ffence is not made out. The High Court has effed in lan r in going into the factual aspecfs of the malter whic,\ were not admitted between the parties. The High Cctrt further erred in observing that Section 138(b) ot N.l. Acf stood uncomplied, even though the respond:nt No.l (accused) has admitted that he replied t rc notice issued by the complainant." Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition

8. On perusal of the material on record, it is adr tted fact that notice was issued in the name of "Sai Medicall;' run by the husband of petitioner instead of "Thrikara Pharma run by the petitioner and it is admitted that the petitioner has ser t reply to the said nolice, issued by the respondent No.2 complainant However, in view of the submissions and the decisic r held by the r 20oj Lawsuit (sc) l()l I 2015 l-awsuit (SC) ll.l

Hon'ble supreme Court, as there are disputed question of facts in the matter, which are triable issues in nature, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings and opines that no interference is required at this stage

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed - //TRUE COPY// To Tts/pr '1 . The XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 One CC to SRl. PULIKANTI SREENIVAS RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

4. One CC to SRl. G NAREDNDER RAJ, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies -i Sd/- M.JAWAHAR REDOY ASSISTANT REGISTRA ECTION OFFICER

HIGH COURT DATED:04111t2025

ORDER

CRLP.No.1063 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION )k * . i:iE Sl'4 F. 1 JtN 2026 'z c) n. SPATCH I q