Telangana High Court
Nagubandi Nagalaxmi vs State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1063 of 2024
ORDER :
This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.NI 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 2 firm stock in trade etc. evaluated through authorized auditor. After audit of accounts, profit and loss arrived at was to be shared in the ratio of 50:50. The petitioner had kept signed blank cheque book with the respondent No.2 enabling her to manage the business and also to look after payments. However, the respondent No.2 presented five cheques claiming her amount of Rs.8,85,000/- which were to be presented after the audit of the accounts and the same were dishonoured for want of funds. Respondent No.2 got issued a legal notice in the name of "Sai medicals" which was run by husband of petitioner instead of "Thrikara Pharma" run by the petitioner herself. However, the petitioner got issued a reply notice denying the averments and allegations.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made are baseless and the complaint is liable to be quashed. The provisions of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are not complied with, as no notice was sent to the petitioner to her address. The respondent No.2 had retained the signed blank cheque book and without adverting to the terms of agreement, arriving at an amount and presenting cheques for amount before conducting audit of the accounts is not in accordance with law. As per Memorandum of understanding, the 3 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 Rebello 1, wherein it was held that "The complainant has not issued the legal notice to the accused as required under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments 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.
7. He placed reliance upon the following decisions-
1. Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2, passed by Allahabad High Court.
1 2023 NCKHC 42924 2 2021(2) Civil Court Cases 0156:2021 (1) Criminal Court Cases 0299 4
2. Decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arm Group Enterprises Ltd. v. Waldorf Restaurant 3
3. Decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A.Abida and Anr. 4 , wherein in para 10 it was held that -
"Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not made out. The High Court has erred in law in going into the factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the parties. The High Court further erred in observing that Section 138(b) of N.I.Act stood uncomplied, even though the respondent No.1 (accused) has admitted that he replied the notice issued by the complainant."
Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. On perusal of the material on record, it is admitted fact that notice was issued in the name of "Sai Medicals" run by the husband of petitioner instead of "Thrikara Pharma" run by the petitioner and it is admitted that the petitioner has sent reply to the said notice, issued by the respondent No.2/complainant. However, in view of the submissions and the decision held by the 3 2003 LawSuit (SC) 393 4 2015 LawSuit (SC) 244 5 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.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 04.11.2025 BV