Telangana High Court
M/S Nirmala Infra Projects India ... vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp ... on 20 October, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.8119 OF 2016
Between:
M/s.Nirmala Infra Projects India Limited,
Rep. by its Directors Ch.Narasimha Reddy
and Ch.Rajendra Reddy, and 2 others
... Petitioners
And
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor,High Court
for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
...Respondent
2. M/s.Sukh Sagar Ceramic Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.B.Satish.
... Respondent/
defacto complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.10.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 8119 of 2016
% Dated 20.10.2022
# M/s.Nirmala Infra Projects India Limited,
Rep. by its Directors Ch.Narasimha Reddy
and Ch.Rajendra Reddy, and 2 others
... Petitioners
And
$1. The State of Telangana, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor,High Court
for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
...Respondent
2. M/s.Sukh Sagar Ceramic Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.B.Satish.
... Respondent/
defacto complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.V.Krishna Rao.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R1
P.Panduranga Reddy for R2.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8119 OF 2016
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash
proceedings in C.C.No.280 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein
are accused in the said case. The offence alleged against them is under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. The 1st petitioner is a Company and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are
Directors of the 1st petitioner Company.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant Company
carries on business in supplying stone ware glazed pipes (SWG) for
underground drainage works. As the petitioners raised purchase orders,
goods were supplied on various dates and as per the ledger account of
the complainant as on 14.05.2014, the petitioners were due a sum of
Rs.7 lakhs. Accordingly, to discharge the said debt, a cheque for Rs.7
lakhs was given by the petitioners which is dated 15.05.2014. The said
cheque was presented for clearance and the same was returned by the
Bank with an endorsement of 'funds insufficient'. The Complainant
company informed about the dishonor of the cheque for which reason,
the petitioners asked the complainant company to present the cheque
in the first week of August, 2014. Accordingly, the said cheque was
presented on 08.08.2014 and the same was again returned for the
reason of payment stopped by the drawer. The Complainant issued legal
notice to the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount covered by the
cheque, however, the said notice was returned as unclaimed on
08.09.2014. Aggrieved by the petitioners not paying the amount
covered by the cheque inspite of notice, present complaint was filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that
when the cheque was returned unpaid, on 17.05.2014, immediately an
amount of Rs.7,00,056/- was credited to the account of the
complainant company by RTGS; and that for the said reason of paying
the amount covered by cheque on the very next date when it was
returned, the question of there being any outstanding does not arise.
Further, the mount of Rs.56/- was also added which is the expenditure
that could be collected by the Bank when the cheque is returned
unpaid.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd
respondent/complainant submits that the total outstanding was
Rs.14,86,153/-; and that the cheque was issued as part payment of
amount due. He further submits that after receiving the said amount of
Rs.7 lakhs which was credited to the account, the Account Statement
maintained by the complainant reflects that there is outstanding of
Rs.7,86,153/- and that the said fact was also informed before the
concerned Court by filing a counter memo. A total amount of
Rs.13,26,153/- was outstanding as on 21.01.2014.
7. The payment of Rs.7,00,056/- is not disputed by the complainant
company which was made on 17.05.2014. According to the complaint,
the outstanding as per the ledger account of the complainant company
as on 14.05.2014 was Rs.7 lakhs for which reason, a cheque dated
15.05.2014 was given for Rs.7 lakhs. The legal notice also claims that
the outstanding as per the ledger account as on 14.05.2014 was Rs.7
lakhs. The statement of account filed by the complainant does not
reflect any transaction after 14.05.2014. Apparently, the statement of
account was prepared to suit the case of the complainant.
8. The petitioners have immediately deposited an amount of Rs.7
lakhs into the account of the complainant by RTGS transfer on the very
next date of dishonor of cheque. The said fact is not disputed by the
complainant and as already discussed, it is the claim of the
complainant that as on 14.05.2014 the ledger account reflects an
outstanding of Rs.7 lakhs only. The statement of account appears to
have been fabricated subsequently to show the outstanding, which is
contrary to the claim of outstanding made in the complaint and legal
notice. Since the amount covered by the cheque was paid on the next
date of return of the cheque, there is no outstanding which is payable
and accordingly, this Court finds that in the background of payment of
the amount there is neither any debt or liability which can be enforced
against the petitioners. For the said reasons, the proceedings against
the petitioners cannot be continued and are liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all the
proceedings in C.C.No.280 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners,
are quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
20.10.2022
tk
Note: L.R.Copy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8119 OF 2016
Dt. 20.10.2022
tk
