Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B.Ayyavaraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 April, 2026
APHC010324902024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5280 & 5284 OF 2024
Crl.P.No:5280/2024
Between:
1. B.AYYAVARAIAH, S/O. B.ANKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN JUDICIAL DEPT, R/O. D.NO.39/449-15,
OMSHANTHI NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
2. A RAJA PARAMESWARA RAO, S/O. A. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.3/567, AKKAYAPALLI,
KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Crl.P.No: 5284/2024
Between:
1. B.AYYAVARAIAH, S/O. B.ANKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN JUDICIAL DEPT, R/O. D.NO.39/449-15,
OMSHANTHI NAGAR KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
2. A RAJA PARAMESWARA RAO, S/O. A. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.3/567, AKKAYAPALLI,
KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition Nos. 5280 and 5284 of 2024 are heard together and
disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioner/Accused and the
Respondent/De-facto complainant are one and the same in both cases,
though the STC numbers are different.
2. Criminal Petition No.5280 of 2024 has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the
Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of the proceedings in S.T.C.No.57 of
3
2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kadapa (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’).
3. Criminal Petition No.5284 of 2024 has been filed under Section 482 of
‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’ by the Petitioner/Accused seeking
quashment of the proceedings in S.T.C.No.58 of 2024 on the file of ‘the
learned Trial Court’.
4. Notice on Respondent No.2 through substituted service was ordered
and has been duly carried out. There is no representation for Respondent
No.2. Hence, if a learned legal aid counsel is appointed to argue the case on
behalf of Respondent No.2, for the ends of justice as no prejudice is caused to
Respondent No.2. Hence, Ms.Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel, is
appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2 in this case. The
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue
necessary proceedings in this regard.
5. Mr. Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits
that the disputed cheques dated 20.11.2023 were allegedly issued by the
Petitioner/Accused to Respondent No.2, i.e., Cheque No.410742 dated
20.11.2023 in S.T.C.No.57 of 2024 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and Cheque
No.410734 dated 20.11.2023 in S.T.C.No.58 of 2024 for an amount of
Rs.1,80,000/-. Both the cheques belonged to the State Bank of Hyderabad
(SBH). It is submitted that, as per the RBI circular, the State Bank of
Hyderabad was amalgamated with the State Bank of India (SBI) with effect
from 01.04.2017, and the State Bank of Hyderabad cheques became invalid
4
from 01.07.2018. Respondent No.2 retained the cheques without any legal
basis, presented them to his banker, got them dishonoured, and thereafter
filed private complaints under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘the N.I.Act’), with an intention to
defraud and harass the Petitioner.
6. Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that
both cheques are invalid with effect from 01.07.2018, as the State Bank of
Hyderabad was amalgamated with the State Bank of India on 01.04.2017.
Therefore, appropriate orders may be passed.
7. Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2,
reiterates the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and
submits that both the cheques in question is invalid. She urges the Court to
pass appropriate orders.
8. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the
record.
9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the
learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.57 & 58 of 2024 on the file of the
learned I Additional Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa are liable to be
quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?”
5
11. On careful perusal of the record, the Petitioner submitted an application
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Head, Regional Business
Office, Kadapa Branch. The State Bank of India, vide letter dated 26.06.2024
issued by the General Manager, Network-III, confirmed that the State Bank of
Hyderabad was merged into the State Bank of India on 01.04.2017. Further,
RTC Bus Stand Branch, Kadapa (Branch Code: 20948, IFSC
Code:SBHY0020948), became invalid from 01.07.2018 onwards. The
disputed cheques, i.e., Cheque No.410742 dated 20.11.2023 in S.T.C.No.57
of 2024 for Rs.50,000/- and Cheque No.410734 dated 20.11.2023 in
S.T.C.No.58 of 2024 for Rs.1,80,000/-, were not presented before 01.07.2018
and, therefore, ceased to be valid due to the change of MICR code of the
branch.
12. The disputed cheques could not have been issued by the Petitioner on
20.11.2023, as cheques of the State Bank of Hyderabad were valid only up to
01.07.2018, following the amalgamation of the State Bank of Hyderabad with
the State Bank of India on 01.04.2017. It is thus evident that the cheques were
invalid and could not form the basis of prosecution under Section 138 of ‘the
N.I Act‘. The proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.57 and 58 of 2024 before ‘the learned
Trial Court’ are a classic example of abuse of process of law.
13. This Court in Nandhigam Koteswararao v. State of A.P., 1 while
referring to several judgments of this Court and other High Courts, held that
cheques issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad after 01.07.2018 are invalid,
1
Crl.P.No.9345 of 2025, dated 16.03.2026
6
and proceedings based thereon were quashed. The case of the present
Petitioner stands on similar footing.
14. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Ganta Kavitha Devi v. Madala
Ananth Kumar 2 , had, in analogous circumstances, quashed proceedings
initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity
‘the N.I Act‘), by relying on the two decision of the High Courts of Delhi and
Allahabad rendered in Premand Prusty v. Sita Devi3 and Archana Singh
Gautham v. State of U.P4.
15. The High Court of Allahabad in Archana Singh Gautham supra at para
Nos.7 to 9 and 12, it is held as under:
“7…From the perusal of Section 138 N.I. Act, it is clear that if any invalid
cheque is presented before the Bank and the same was dishonoured, then
there is no liability under Section 138 N.1. Act would be attracted, and the
cheque of Allahabad Bank is invalid after 30.09.2021 after merging the
Allahabad Bank into the Indian Bank on 01.04.2020. Therefore,
dishonouring such cheques, after 30.09.2021 will not attract liability u/s 138
N.I Act.
8. It is also relevant to mention here that as per Section 118 N.1. Act a
cheque shall be deemed to be drawri on the date which is mentioned in the
cheque even if same may post dated.
9. In the present case, a cheque dated 02:06.2023 of erstwhile Allahabad
Bank was presented to the Indian Bank on 21.08.2023, and the same was
returned on 25.08.2023 with the endorsement “wrongly delivered not drawn
on us”. Therefore, the cheque in question was invalid on the date of
presentation before the Indian Bank.
12. This Court is also of the view that the above analogy will also be
applicable to the cheques of all banks which had merged with other banks.”
16. Thus, in Archana Singh Gautham supra, it was held that when an
invalid cheque is presented before the bank and dishonoured, no liability
arises under Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act.,’ since the cheque itself is invalid.
Pursuant to the merger of the State Bank of Hyderabad with the State Bank of
2
Crl.P.No.8827 of 2022, dated 25.10.2024
3
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7745
4
Application No.9536 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024
7
India, cheques of the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad ceased to be valid
after 31.03.2018. Further, Section 118(b) of ‘the N.I.Act.,’ provides that a
cheque shall be deemed to have been drawn on the date mentioned therein,
even if it is post-dated.
17. On a meticulous appraisal of the record and submissions, it is manifest
that the disputed cheques dated 20.11.2023, i.e., Cheque No.410742 in
S.T.C.No.57 of 2024 for Rs.50,000/- and Cheque No.410734 in S.T.C.No.58 of
2024 for Rs.1,80,000/-, purportedly drawn on the erstwhile State Bank of
Hyderabad, were incapable of being issued or honoured, as the said bank
stood amalgamated with the State Bank of India on 01.04.2017 and its
cheques ceased to be valid after 01.07.2018. The confirmation by the State
Bank of India under the Right to Information Act reinforces this position.
Consequently, the cheques in question were invalid ab initio and could not
constitute the foundation for prosecution under Section 138 of ‘the N.I.Act.,’
Judicial precedents, including Nandhigam Koteswararao supra and Ganta
Kavitha Devi supra, as well as analogous rulings of the High Courts of Delhi
and Allahabad, have consistently held that proceedings based on invalid
cheques are unsustainable. Therefore, the continuation of S.T.C.Nos.57 and
58 of 2024 before ‘the learned Trial Court’ amounts to an abuse of process of
law.
18. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The proceedings in
S.T.C.Nos.57 and 58 of 2024 on the file of ‘the learned Trial Court’ are hereby
quashed.
8
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 22.04.2026
PRA
9
90
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5280 & 5284 OF 2024
Date: 22.04.2026
PRA