Telangana High Court
Smt. Tirumala Urmila vs Vala Jagan Mohan Rao on 20 September, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.9191 OF 2016
Between:
Smt.Tirumala Urmila and others ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2,3,5& 6
And
Vala Jagan Mohan Rao and another ... Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 20.09.2023
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. 9191 of 2016
% Dated 20.09.2023
# Smt.Tirumala Urmila and others ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2,3,5& 6
And
$ Vala Jagan Mohan Rao and another ... Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.V.Vidyasagar
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Shyam S.Agarwal for R1
Public Prosecutor for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622
2
2010 SCC 3330
3
AIR 2015 SC 675
4
2017 Law Suit (SC) 1035
5
2008 (2) ALT Crl.336
6
AIR 2019 SC 2518
7
(2016) 6 SCC 78
8
2007 SCC Online Del 1569
9
280 (2021) DLT 158
10
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 253 (SC)
11
(2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 108
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9191 OF 2016
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A2,3,5
and 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.636
of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Medak.
2. Briefly, the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is
that these petitioners are partners in A1 partnership firm. In
the course of business, for repaying amount outstanding to
the 1st respondent, two cheques for Rs.45,60,000/- were given
towards repayment. The said cheques, when presented for
clearance were returned unpaid. Notice was issued, pursuant
to which complaint was filed, since the accused failed to repay
the amount covered by the cheques having received the notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
there is no specific allegation against these petitioners. For the
reason of being wife and children of A4, petitioners have been
falsely implicated. They are sleeping partners and they have
nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the firm. In the
complaint at para 11, except stating that these petitioners are
partners of A1 partnership firm, being from the same family
and involved actively in the day to day affairs of the company,
there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that these
petitioners were involved in any manner with the transactions
in between A1 firm and the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Shewakramani & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
another 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with
under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act held
as follows:
"19. ...... Every person who is sought to be roped in by virtue of sub-section
1 of Section 141 NI Act must be a person who at the time the offence was
committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company. Merely because somebody is
managing the affairs of the company, per se, he does not become in charge
of the conduct of the business of the company or the person responsible for
the company for the conduct of the business of the company. For example, in
a given case, a manager of a company may be managing the business of the
company. Only on the ground that he is managing the business of the
company, he cannot be roped in based on sub-section 1 of Section 141 of the
NI Act. The second allegation in the complaint is that the appellants are
busy with the day-to-day affairs of the company. This is hardly relevant in
the context of subsection 1 of Section 141 of the NI Act. The allegation that
they are in charge of the company is neither here Criminal Appeal No.879
of 2023 Page 11 of 14 nor there and by no stretch of the imagination, on the
basis of such averment, one cannot conclude that the allegation of the
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622
second respondent is that the appellants were also responsible to the
company for the conduct of the business. Only by saying that a person was
in charge of the company at the time when the offence was committed is not
sufficient to attract sub-section 1 of Section 141 of the NI Act."
5. He also relied on the judgments in the cases of; i)
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., v. Harmeet
Singh Paintal 2; Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of
Maharashtra and another 3; Ashok Mal Bafna v. Upper
India Steel Manufacturing & Engineering Co., Limited 4
and K.Venkataramaiah and others v. Sri Katterao 5.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/complainant would submit that in the recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
A.R.Radha Krishna v. Dasari Deepthi and others 6, it is held
as follows:
"10. A perusal of the record in the present case indicates
that the Appellant has specifically averred in his complaint
that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were actively
participating in the day-today affairs of the Accused No.1
company. Further, the Accused Nos.2 to 4 (including the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) are alleged to be from the
same family and running the Accused No.1 company
together. The complaint also specifies that all the accused,
2010 SCC 3330
AIR 2015 SC 675
2017 Law Suit (SC) 1035
2008 (2) ALT Crl.336
AIR 2019 SC 2518
in active connivance, mischievously and intentionally
issued the cheques in favour of the Appellant and later
issued instructions to the Bank to "Stop Payment". No
evidence of unimpeachable quality has been brought on
record by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to indicate that
allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of
process of the court."
7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent also relied on the
judgments in the case of Tamilnadu Print and Papers Limited v.
D.Karunakar 7, Nipam Kotwal, Director M/s.Digital Multiforms
Limited & others v. Dominos Printech India Private Limited 8;
Shyam S.Bageshra v. State NCT of Delhi and others 9; Krishna
Texport and Capital Markets Ltd., v. Ila A.Agarwal and
others 10 and N.Rangachari v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 11.
8. In the complaint, it is mentioned that loan was taken in the
month of June, 2012 and the amounts were transferred by way of
RTGS to an extent of Rs.38.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs was paid
in cash. There was no repayment of the amount, for which
reason, complainant asked for payment. Accordingly, cheques in
question were issued, signed by A4. The account in the bank was
being run by A4 and accordingly cheque was also issued by A4.
(2016) 6 SCC 78
2007 SCC Online Del 1569
280 (2021) DLT 158
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 253 (SC)
(2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 108
The transaction is a loan transaction transferred to A1 firm's
account. It is not mentioned in the complaint as to whom Rs.2.00
lakhs was paid in cash.
9. Petitioners being family members of A4, who, according to
the learned counsel for the petitioners were also married and they
are carrying on their own avocation, as such, they cannot be roped
in only for the reason of being partners in the A1 firm.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Shewakramani's
case (supra) held that a person cannot be roped in only for
the reason of managing business and being busy with day to
day affairs would be hardly relevant in the context of sub-
section (1) of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the words "was in
charge of" and "was responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company" cannot be read
disjunctively and have to be read conjunctively in view of the
use of word "and" in between. Giving a liberal construction,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said averments will
not substantively comply with sub-section (1) of Section 141
of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
11. Similarly, in the present case, in para 11 of the
complaint, it is mentioned that these petitioners were actively
involved in day today affairs of the firm and in-charge of the
business. It cannot be said that in the present facts of
obtaining loan from the accused at one instance and cheque
being issued by A4, these petitioners can be mulcted with
criminal liability with the aid of Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
12. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2,
A3, A5 and A6 in C.C.No.636 of 2015 on the file of the Junior
Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special
Mobile Court, Medak, are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 20.09.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9191 OF 2016
Dt. 20.09.2023
kvs
