Allowed

Bhamidipati Bhaskara Lakshmi, Hyd v. Jala Srinivas Yadav and Another Rep. by P.P.

Telangana HC5 Mar 2021CRLP/1869/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against an individual accused because the issuing company, in whose favour the cheque was drawn, was not arraigned as a party to the complaint, rendering the proceedings patently illegal.

What did the court decide?

CrPC proceedings in C.C.No.289 of 2019 against the petitioner were quashed as the issuing company was not arraigned as an accused.

Bhamidipati Bhaskara Lakshmi, Hyd Vs Jala Srinivas Yadav… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTIGE G.^{SRI DEVI}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{1869OF 2017}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bhamidipati Bhaskara Lakshmi,^{W/o,. B.Srinivas,} .Age: {5.^ygqr:, Occ: Business, tVlD of Siva^{Sai Builders &Developers Pvt,Ltd''} nlo.H.No.t -g-al 8/5, Near^{Post Office,Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana}

¶8

.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

Jala Srinivas Yadav,^{S/o. Yadaiah Yadav, Age:50 years'} Occ: Business, R/o.^{H.No.1-9-532, Adikmet, Near HanumanTemple,} Hyderabad-500 044,^Telangana

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by Public Prosecutor,Hyderabad}

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr,P.C praying thatin the circumstances} stated in the^{lr,4emorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court may} be^p|eased to^{quashthe comp|aint C.C.No,14 o,f 2017 on the file of Hon.bleXl} Special Magistrate Court,^{Hastinapuram, for the offenceU/s138of Nl Act}

¶14

CRL.P.M.P.No.1802^{OF 2017}

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying thatin the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High court may} be pleased to stay^{all for the proceedings in c.c.No.14 ol 2017 on the file of Xl} Special tt/agistrate,^{Hastinapuram, Pending disposalof Crl P}

¶16

t.A. NO :3 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under section⁴⁸² of^{cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High court may} bepleasedtoextendtheinterimorderofstayinl.A.No.2of2020dl: o4to3l2o20 in crl.P.lr/P.No.1802^{0l 2017in crl.P.No.18690f 2017 till further} orders by way of^{passing ordersfor dispensing the presence of the petitioner} herein^{(Accused) in the lower court, till the stay is in continuation'}

¶18

CRLPMP. NO:^{2465 OF 2017}

¶19

Between:

¶20

Jala Srinivas^{Yadav, S/o. Yadaiah Yadav, Age: 50 years' Occ: Busin-e-ss^'- -} njbl H,Nr".i-s-532,^{Aoit rent, ttearHanuma-nTemble,Hyderabad-sg.044'} Telangana

¶21

...pETtrloNERyRESPoNDENT^No'1

AND

'1 . Bhamidipati Bhaskara Lakshmi'^W/o .^{B srinivas' Age: 45 years'} il;, Bffi;"..,^{-rtrri'ir ti'-i sti Builders & DevelopersPvt' Ltd'} fu" H N"^{i-s-eiars, r'r#r. F"'t otri'"' u'ol?.H83'i3ilB"Jiit?gJif3true}

¶26

rhe State^{of relangana'Rep bv euotic effiffiBl{1ffiE$roort}

¶27

Petition under^{Section482 ofCr'P'C praying that inthe} circumstances^{stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition'the} High Court^{may be pleased to vacate the interimorderspassed} tn Crl.P.M.P.No.1^{802 of 2017 in Crl P No 1869 of 2017 dated 0303'20'17and} dismissed^{the Criminal Petition}

¶28

This Petition^{comingon forhearing' uponperusingthe} Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition and upon hearingthe arguments} of Sri. M.^{LaxmanRao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the} Public Prosecutor^{(TG) on behalf of the Respondent No 2 and of Sri G} Ashok, Advocate for^{the ResPondentNo'1}

¶29

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶30

HONOURABLE IUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶31

CRIMINA LPETITION No,1.869 of 2017

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C,No.2g9 of 2019 on the file of the XII Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.p.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that the {irst respondent herein filed a private complaint against petitioner/ accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable^{InstrurnentsAct,} 1881, allegnrg that the petitioner,^{who being the Managing Director} of Siva Sai Builders and Developers^{Private Limited, approached} lrim in the 2nd week of January,^{2016 and requested him to provide} hand loan of Rs.25.00^{lakhs for her urgent business necessities'} assuring that she will^{pay the saidamount within six months'Out} relying on the^{assurancemade by the petitioner'} of acquaintance .and the first respondent^{advanced hand loan of Rs'25'00'000/-on} 28.01,.201,6 and on^{the said date the, petitioner/accusedhad issued} post dated cheque^{bearing No' 353010dated08'08'2016 for Rs'25'00} lakhsdrawnonAndhraBank,RamnagarBranch,Hyderabad,in discharge^{of its legallyenforceabledebt' After six months' when the} said cheque^{was presentecl by the first respondentin its banker} ICICI Bank,^{Dilsukhnagar Branch, Chaitanyapuri' Ranga Reddy}

¶35

¶36

District, the^{same was returned with an endorsement" Account} Biocked"^{videchequereturn memo' dated16'08 2016 and thereafter} a notice^{was issuedcaliing upon the petitioner/accusedto pay the} cheque amount^{withinthe stipulatedtime After receiving the said} notice, the^{petitioner/accused,issuedrepiy with all false aliegations'} Thereafter, after^{followingthe procedure providedfor under} Sections L38 and^{1,42 of the Negotiable Instruments Act' the1"t} respondent/complainant^{filed the complaint and the samewas} taken on file by the^{trial Court.}

¶37

Though Vakalath was filed^{on behalf o{ the first respondent,} there is no representation on his behalf.^{Hence, heard the learnecl} Counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional^{l'ublicProsecutor} appearing for the second respondent-State and perused the record.

¶38

A perusal of the material on record woulcl show that the 1't respondent/cornplainant filed the cornplaint against the petitioner/ accused in her personal capacity, whereas the cheque alleged to have been issued in favour of the 1.t respondent/complainant is in the name of company i.e.,, Siva Sai Builders and Deveiopers Private Limited. When the cheque is alleged to be issued by the company, the company must be arlayed as a party to the proceedings.

¶39

¶40

¶41

ln Aneeta Hada a. M/s. Godfather Traoels (twl Tours priuate Liuitedl, the AptexCourt held as under;

¶42

"In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag net on the touchstone of vicarious Iiability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V.parekh, which is a three Judge Bench decision."

¶43

In the instant case also, the cheque was issued by the company i.e., Siva Sai Builders and Developers Private Limited. Even though the cheque was signed by the petitioner/accused in the capacity of authorized signatory for the company, the company is not arraigned as an accused in the complaint. When the company is not arraigned as an accused in the private complaint, the proceedings have become patently illegal.

¶44

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court^{in Aneeta} Harla case^(sr.ryra) and having regard to^{the fact that the} Company/ firm is not arraigned as an^{accused in the} Private complaint, this Court opines that continuation^{of proceedings} against the petitioner would be an abuse^{of processof law and all} further proceedings in C.C.No.289 of²⁰¹⁹ on^{the file of the XII}

¶45

'^{(:ot:) etR scw 26s3}

¶46

¶47

Special^{Magistrate,Hastinapuram'againstthe petitionerare liable to} be quashed.

¶48

1S allowed^andthe Accorciingly,^{the CriminalPetition} proceedings^{in C.C.No.289of 2019on the file of the XII Special} Magistrate,^{Hastinapuram,againstthe petitioner} are hereby quashed.

¶49

Miscellaneous applications, if^{any, pendingin this criminal}

¶50

petition shail stand closed.

¶51

SD/-I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

Note: Amended as^per the court order dl.^22.06.2021 lnl.A.No.1 ol2021 in Crl.P.No.1869 ol 2017. This order Substitutes the order dt.05.03.2021 ln Crl.P.No.'1869 of 2017 which was despatched on 17 .03.2021.

¶53

Sd/.I,NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Xll Special fi/agistrate Court, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶58