Telangana High Court
K.Shisupal Reddy vs M/S Sri Lakshmi Agencies on 8 November, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.9465 OF 2018
Between:
K.Shisupal Reddy ... Petitioner/R3/Proposed A3
And
1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Agencies ...Respondent/Petitioner/
Defacto Complainant
2. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad. ...Respondent/Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 08.11.2023
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. 9465 of 2018
% Dated 08.11.2023
# K.Shisupal Reddy ... Petitioner/R3/Proposed A3
And
$ 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Agencies ...Respondent/Petitioner/
Defacto Complainant
2. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent/Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K.Sai babu
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Y.Ashok Raj for R1
Sri Sudershan,
Additiional Public Prosecutor for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9465 OF 2018
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/R3/Proposed Accused No.3, to quash the order dated
05.03.2018 passed in Crl.MP.No.2072 of 2017 in CC.No.29 of
2014 by the X Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad,
whereby the learned Special Magistrate allowed the petition filed
under Section 319 (1) of Cr.P.C. for impleading the respondent
No.3 therein-petitioner herein as Accused No.3 in the main CC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
3. Criminal complaint was filed by the complainant/1st
respondent against this petitioner and two others. At the time of
filing complaint, the name of this petitioner was shown as Accused
No.3. However, this petitioner's name was rounded off in the
cause title of the CC by the complainant. Pursuant to which the
Court has taken cognizance against Accused Nos.1 and 2.
Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed
to implicate this petitioner as Accused No.3. The Special
Magistrate had passed a 12 page order on 05.03.2018, restoring
the complaint against this petitioner/A3, on the ground that it
was admitted during cross-examination that this petitioner was
responsible for running the firm.
4. Firstly, the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. would not
be maintainable for the reason of the power of the Court to array
accused who was not an accused initially. In fact, in the present
case, the petitioner was shown as accused and thereafter the
complainant had rounded off the name of the accused and sought
prosecution against A1 and A2. For the said reason, the trial
Court ought not to have entertained an application under Section
319 of Cr.P.C. Only in the event of any evidence which was
produced before the Court and it appears to the Court that any
person who was involved and such person not previously be an
accused can be made accused. In the present circumstances, the
order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal.
5. The cheque was issued by the Proprietary concern-A1. It was
signed by Accused No.2 as a Proprietor. Even admitting that this
petitioner was running the affairs of the proprietary concern, it
does not make him vicariously liable. Under Section 141 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, any person who is responsible for
running a company can be made vicariously liable, when such
person was responsible for the transactions and also for running
the company on a daily basis. Even assuming that this petitioner
was running the affairs of the firm, he cannot be made vicariously
liable since the cheque was issued by the proprietary concern and
only proprietary concern and proprietor can be made as accused
and not anyone else including this petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order
dated 05.03.2018 passed in Crl.MP.No.2072 of 2017 in CC.No.29
of 2014 on the file of X Special Magistrate, Erramanzil,
Hyderabad, is hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.11.2023
tk
