Telangana High Court
M/S. Brahma Teja Paper Products vs The State Of Telangana on 22 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition Nos.3799 & 3861 OF 2018
Criminal Petition Nos.3799 OF 2018
Between:
1. M/s.Brahma Teja Paper Products
2. Mrs.P.Janaki
....Petitioners/A3 & A4
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad
2. M/s.Kushalchand (P) Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager Mr.Krishna Reddy.
...Respondents/complainant
3. M/s.Maneesha Art Printers,
Proprietor Mr.P.Sridhar
4. Mr.P.Sridhar
...Respondents/A1 & A2
Criminal Petition Nos.3861 OF 2018
Between:
1. M/s.Brahma Teja Paper Products
2. Mrs.P.Janaki
....Petitioners/A3 & A4
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad
2. M/s.Kushalchand (P) Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager Mr.Krishna Reddy.
...Respondents/complainant
3. M/s.Maneesha Art Printers,
Proprietor Mr.P.Sridhar
4. Mr.P.Sridhar
...Respondents/A1 & A2
2
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.12.2023
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 the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
3
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Criminal Petition Nos.3799 & 3861 OF 2018
+ CRL.P. No. 3799 of 2018
% Dated 22.12.2023
# 1. M/s.Brahma Teja Paper Products
# 2. Mrs.P.Janaki
....Petitioners/A3 & A4
And
$ 1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad and another
$ 2. M/s.Kushalchand (P) Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager Mr.Krishna Reddy. ...Respondents/complainant
$ 3. M/s.Maneesha Art Printers,
Proprietor Mr.P.Sridhar and another ...Respondents/A1 & A2
+ CRL.P. No. 3861 of 2018
# 1. M/s.Brahma Teja Paper Products
# 2. Mrs.P.Janaki
....Petitioners/A3 & A4
And
$ 1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad and another
$ 2. M/s.Kushalchand (P) Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager Mr.Krishna Reddy. ...Respondents/complainant
$ 3. M/s.Maneesha Art Printers,
Proprietor Mr.P.Sridhar and another ...Respondents/A1 & A2
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Hariharan
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Ms.Rachana Waddepalli for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 71
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3799 & 3861 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
1. Criminal Petition No.3799 of 2018
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A3 & A4 to
quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.140 of 2017 on the
file of VII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. The offence
alleged against the petitioners are under Section 138 r/w.sec.142
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.
2. Criminal Petition No.3861 of 2018
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A3 & A4 to
quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.150 of 2017 on the
file of VII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. The offence
alleged against the petitioners are under Section 138 r/w.sec.142
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.
3. Since the question of fact and law are same, both the
petitions are disposed off by this common order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State.
5. The 2nd respondent filed complaint for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against these
petitioners. Accused No.3/petitioner No.1 is the Proprietary
concern and Accused No.4/petitioner No.2 is the Proprietor.
6. The case of the defacto complainant is that he had dealings
with the accused A1 to A4 and on different dates he supplied
material to the accused. Initially, the 2nd petitioner/A4 issued
cheque towards payments, however, the said cheque was returned
for the reason of insufficient funds. Thereafter, complaint was
filed. However, issues were settled in between the parties. The
total outstanding of Rs.61,50,000/- was liable to be paid.
Accordingly, two cheques were issued. The cheque issued for
Rs.30 lakhs is the subject matter of Crl.P.No.3861 of 2017 and
another cheque issued for Rs.31,50,000/- is the subject matter of
Crl.P.No.3799 of 2018. The said cheques when presented for
clearance were returned unpaid for the reason of insufficient
funds.
7. In both the cases for the reason of not honouring the
cheques, notice was issued to all the accused. Since the amount
covered by cheques was not paid, complaints were filed separately.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the cheques were issued and signed by Accused No.2. The
petitioners herein have nothing to do with the issuance of
cheques. Since the cheques were issued by Accused No.2, the
question of prosecuting these petitioners does not arise.
9. He relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in
Aparna A.shah v. sheth Developers Private Limited and
another 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that only
the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, except in the case
of culpability of other persons who are made vicariously liable
under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
10. On the other hand it was argued by the learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent that there are clear averments in
the complaint stating about the background, acquaintance and
business transactions in between the petitioners and the
complainant. In fact it is specifically mentioned in the complaint
that the 2nd petitioner had handed over both the chqeues in
question. When there is a specific allegation, the proceedings have
to continue and it is for the trial Court to decide the complicity or
otherwise of the petitioners herein.
(2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 71
11. Both the cheques in question were admittedly signed by
Accused No.2-P.Sridhar. Even accepting that the said cheques
were handed over by 2nd petitioner/A4, the question of
prosecuting the petitioners does not arise. It is only the drawer of
the cheque who can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not the case that these
petitioners fall within section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and are vicariously liable.
12. For the said reason of the 2nd petitioner/A4 not being the
drawer of the subject cheques, the question of prosecuting the
petitioners herein does not arise.
13. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners /A3 & A4 in CC.No.140 of
2017 and CC.No.150 of 2017 on the file of VII Special Magistrate,
Erramanzil, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.:22.12.2023
Note: L.R.copy to be marked.
tk
