Telangana High Court
Shrihan Agro And Exim Private ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 13 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Petition No.8617 of 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in S.T.C.No.4314 of 2022 on
the file of X Metropolitan Magistgrate, Manoranjan Complex,
Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that the
1st petitioner company placed purchase orders for purchase of
sugar and the same was accordingly delivered by the
complainant. Towards the outstanding, cheque for
Rs.8,83,997/- was issued. However, when the same was
presented, it was returned for the reason of 'payment stopped
by the drawer'.
3. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that the
entire case of the complainant is fabricated. The transactions
as stated by the complainant are incorrect and there is no
outstanding and the cheque given towards security was
misused.
4. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments i.e., i)
Mr.Nagarjun Valluripalli, Director, Surya Ray Elixiris
Private Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Laws (APH)
2018 3 56] and ii) N.Vasantha v. R.Srinivasan
[Crl.O.P.No.10031 of 2011 and M.P.No. 1 of 2011, dated
17.03.2017].
5. On the other hand, respondents filed counter affidavit
giving para-wise replies and urged this Court to dismiss the
petition. They relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of i) S.P.Mani and Mohan Dairy v.
Dr.Snehalatha Elangovan [LAWS (SC) 2022-9-79]; ii)
N.Rangachari v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [LAWS
(SC)-2007-4-64]. Learned counsel for the respondents argued
that the burden is on the Board of Directors or the officers in-
charge of the company to show that they are not liable to be
prosecuted since there was restriction on their powers or
there existed any special circumstance that makes them not
liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge
and it is for them to establish during trial.
6. In the case on hand, 3rd petitioner is the wife of the 2nd
petitioner. Except pleading that the 3rd petitioner was also
responsible for the day to day affairs of the company, the
respondent/complainant has not mentioned as to the manner
in which the 3rd petitioner was in any way responsible with
the purchase of sugar or any other transactions which
transpired with A1 company. The cheque was signed by the
2nd petitioner, who is authorized signatory and unless it is
asserted that 3rd petitioner/A3 was complicit in any manner
either in the transactions of purchase or issuing cheques, she
cannot be made vicariously liable. Even in the judgments
cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when a basis is made to prosecute
the directors or officers in charge of the firm or a company,
only then the burden shifts on to them to prove that they
were not complicit in the offence.
7. In the present case, when there is no basis made for
specifically implicating the 3rd petitioner except making a
vague statement that she was also responsible for the day to
day affairs of the company, would not in any manner satisfy
the ingredients of making her vicariously liable. For the said
reasons, the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 are liable
to be quashed.
8. In the result, the proceedings against the 3rd
petitioner/A3 in STC No.4314 of 2022 on the file of X
Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Gandhi
Bhavan, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. However, the Court
shall proceed against petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13.12.2022
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Petition No.8617 of 2022
Date: 13.12.2022
kvs
