G.Siva Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2781 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                     MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.P.No.4304 of 2021
                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      Date                                ORDER                                   OFFICE
No.                                                                                   NOTE

1.    02.08.2021   LK,J

                                        I.A.No.1 of 2021

                          This     interlocutory    application   is   filed    to
                   dispense with filing of the certified copy of Protest
                   Petition in C.C.No.479 of 2020 on the file of learned
                   Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
                          Heard.
                          For the reasons stated, this petition is ordered
                   for the present.
                                                                       _________
                                                                        LK, J

                                      Crl.P.No.4304 of 2021

                          Learned      Assistant   Public   Prosecutor    takes
                   notice on behalf of respondent No.1-state and seeks

time for getting instructions.

Issue notice to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent No.2 by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service.

Post after four weeks.

_________ LK, J I.A.No.2 of 2021

The criminal petition is filed assailing the docket order dated 30.01.2020 passed in the protest pettion filed by the complainant whereby the case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioner only and summons were issued to him.

This interlocutory application is filed with a prayer to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.479 of 2020 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Heard.

Learned Senior Counsel, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire litigation is purely civil in nature and earlier after conducting investigation, Police have filed final report stating that the litigation is of civil nature. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since the dispute is between two companies, the complaint itself is not maintainable as the petitioner who is Managing Director of the company is alone arrayed as accused and the company is not included as party. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there is no specific allegation against the Managing Director and when the company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceedings can be initiated against even where vicarious liability is fastened in certain statutes. He submits that the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

In view of the the above principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as in the present case the Managing Director of the company alone is made a party, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.479 of 2020 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, as far as the petitioner is concerned, until further orders.

_________ LK, J IKN

2015 (12) SCC 781