A.Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Telangana, Rep By P.P ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2535 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10757 OF 2017

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A4 to

quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.15 of 2015 on

the file of I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that this petitioner and

two others approached him for loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs in the

first week of January, 2013. The complainant had taken loan

from City Bank and transferred an amount of Rs.3,98,000/-

to the account of A1 company. Thereafter, this petitioner and

two others agreed to pay installments to the City Bank,

Chennai. Again this petitioner and two others expressed

financial necessity, for which reason, Rs.3.00 lakhs was again

advanced. At the time of granting loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs also,

this petitioner and two others assured the complainant to

clear the entire outstanding. Having paid part of the EMIs,

accused failed to make the entire payment, for which reason,

cheque for Rs.6,90,875/- was handed over.

3. The said cheque, when presented for clearance was

returned unpaid for which reason, the complainant issued

notice to the accused and thereafter, filed complaint since

amount was not paid within the prescribed time of 15 days

after receipt of notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as

seen from the company master data, this petitioner was not a

director in the company. The cheque was not signed by him.

In fact, the petitioner had resigned from the company on

05.08.2012 which was informed to the Registrar of

Companies.

5. The transactions in question were in the month of June,

2012 and thereafter, when the petitioner was not the Director

and had resigned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra

Kurangi and others v. Greenmint India Agritech (Private)

Limited 1 and also the judgment in the case of

S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Neetu Bhalla and

2016 (1)ALD (Crl.) 177

another 2. It was held that unless it is shown that the

Directors of the company were responsible for the

transactions in question, they cannot be mulcted with

criminal liability.

7. There is no dispute regarding law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Limited v.

Neetu Bhalla and another (supra). However, in the present

case, the petitioner had filed a letter reflecting resignation on

05.08.2012 and printout is provided from the portal of

the certified copies of documents are not filed having taken

from ROC.

8. In the said circumstances, the grounds raised by the

petitioner can be agitated before the trial Court. However, the

attendance of petitioner/A4 is dispensed with in CC.No.15 of

2015 on the file of I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, when

represented by his counsel on record. The attendance of the

petitioner is dispensed subject to filing an affidavit by the

petitioner/A4 stating that in his absence the proceedings

(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 89

conducted by his counsel will not be disputed by him in any

manner and shall not dispute his identity also. However, the

petitioner/A4 shall appear before the learned Magistrate as

and when his presence is required. In the event of the

petitioner's/A4 failure to appear when the Court directs, this

order dispensing his attendance shall stand cancelled.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.09.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10757 OF 2017

Dt. 20.09.2023

kvs