THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10757 OF 2017
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A4 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that this petitioner and two others approached him for loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs in the first week of January, 2013. The complainant had taken loan from City Bank and transferred an amount of Rs.3,98,000/- to the account of A1 company. Thereafter, this petitioner and two others agreed to pay installments to the City Bank, Chennai. Again this petitioner and two others expressed financial necessity, for which reason, Rs.3.00 lakhs was again advanced. At the time of granting loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs also, this petitioner and two others assured the complainant to clear the entire outstanding. Having paid part of the EMIs, accused failed to make the entire payment, for which reason, cheque for Rs.6,90,875/- was handed over. 2
3. The said cheque, when presented for clearance was returned unpaid for which reason, the complainant issued notice to the accused and thereafter, filed complaint since amount was not paid within the prescribed time of 15 days after receipt of notice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as seen from the company master data, this petitioner was not a director in the company. The cheque was not signed by him. In fact, the petitioner had resigned from the company on 05.08.2012 which was informed to the Registrar of Companies.
5. The transactions in question were in the month of June, 2012 and thereafter, when the petitioner was not the Director and had resigned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kurangi and others v. Greenmint India Agritech (Private) Limited 1 and also the judgment in the case of S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Neetu Bhalla and 1 2016 (1)ALD (Crl.) 177 3 another 2. It was held that unless it is shown that the Directors of the company were responsible for the transactions in question, they cannot be mulcted with criminal liability.
7. There is no dispute regarding law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Neetu Bhalla and another (supra). However, in the present case, the petitioner had filed a letter reflecting resignation on 05.08.2012 and printout is provided from the portal of www.mca.gov.in having downloaded on 05.03.2016. However, the certified copies of documents are not filed having taken from ROC.
8. In the said circumstances, the grounds raised by the petitioner can be agitated before the trial Court. However, the attendance of petitioner/A4 is dispensed with in CC.No.15 of 2015 on the file of I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, when represented by his counsel on record. The attendance of the petitioner is dispensed subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioner/A4 stating that in his absence the proceedings 2 (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 89 4 conducted by his counsel will not be disputed by him in any manner and shall not dispute his identity also. However, the petitioner/A4 shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when his presence is required. In the event of the petitioner's/A4 failure to appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing his attendance shall stand cancelled.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.09.2023 kvs 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10757 OF 2017 Dt. 20.09.2023 kvs