Telangana High Court
Sri.Maddukuru Balagangadhar Tilak vs The State Of Telangana on 20 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.3693 OF 2019
Between:
Maddukuru Balagangadhar Tilak
and another ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another ...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :20.12.2023
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 their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No.3693 of 2019
% Dated 20.12.2023
# Maddukuru Balagangadhar Tilak
and another ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another ... Respondents/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Chekuri Yadagiri
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Addl.Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri Srinivas Velagapudi for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
CDJ 2012 SC 309
2
CDJ 2019 SC 257
3
(2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 355
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3693 of 2019
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in CC.No.1 of 2018 on the
file of VIII Special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, R.R.District
for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act').
2. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2nd respondent
/complainant is into the business of manufacturing "Kraft
Paper". During the course of business supplies were made and
towards the outstanding payable, three cheques were issued
in favour of the complainant by the firm namely Sree Venkata
Sai Packaging Industries.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that cheques were issued by partnership firm but the
partners only are made accused and not the partnership firm
which is Sree Venkata Sai Packaging Industries. Failure to
make the 'firm' as party to the criminal complaint, the
complaint cannot be proceeded against persons in charge of
the firm.
4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada & others v.
M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited &
another 1. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu v. B.Shivamurthy &
another 2.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad
Chaurasia and another 3, wherein it was held as follows:
"21. If we look at the format of the complaint which we have
extracted aforesaid, it is quite apparent that the Managing
Director has filed the complaint on behalf of the Company.
There could be a format where the Company's name is
described first, suing through the Managing Director but there
cannot be a fundamental defect merely because the name of
the Managing Director is stated first followed by the post held
in the Company."
CDJ 2012 SC 309
CDJ 2019 SC 257
(2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 355
6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would
submit that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find
fault with the name of the Managing Director appearing first
and his description as the Managing Director of the company,
for filing the complaint, similarly in the present complaint, the
names of the partners are mentioned. However, the
description reveals as partner of Sree Venkata Sai Packaging
Industries. For the said reason of describing the petitioners as
partners of Sree Venkata Sai Packaging Industries, it has to be
inferred that the company is also made as accused in the
complaint. Accordingly, the petition has to be dismissed.
7. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes a
company/firm liable for dishonour of cheque if the cheque is
drawn on behalf of the company/firm. Further, every person,
who is responsible for the day to day affairs and also running
of the company can be made vicariously liable along with the
company/firm.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned
judgments i.e., Aneeta Hada's case and Himanshu's case
(supra) held that unless the company/firm is made as an
accused, the other persons, who are responsible for the day to
day affairs cannot be prosecuted, without the company being
made as an accused.
9. The analogy of the learned counsel for the respondent on
the basis of Bhupesh Rathod's case cannot be accepted. Only
for the reason of description in the cause title that the
petitioners are partners of partnership firm will not mean that
the company has been arrayed as an accused. The firm/
company as an entity has to be made as an accused
separately. Only then the partners or Directors can be made
vicariously liable. In the judgment of Bhupesh Rathod's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
complaint being filed on behalf of the company did not find
fault with the Managing Director being named first and
thereafter describing him as the Managing Director of the
company. The same reasoning cannot be applied in cases of
accused. Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act requires
that a company has to be prosecuted and other persons
responsible be made vicariously liable. Prosecuting only the
persons liable without making the partnership firm as a party,
complaint is void.
10. For the said reasons, the petitioners succeed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/A1 & A2 in CC.No.1 of
2018 on the file of VIII Special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram,
R.R.District are hereby quashed.
11. Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 20.12.2023
Note: L.R copy to be marked.
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3693 of 2019
Dt.20.12.2023
kvs
