Allowed

M/S Sri Vigneswara Rythu Depot, Nellore and Another v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022CRLP/16397/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act initiated by a company representative whose General Power of Attorney had expired years before the complaint was filed. The court held that the unauthorized filing made the complainant a stranger to the suit, warranting quashment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 92 of 2016 against petitioners are quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

M/S Sri Vigneswara Rythu Depot, Nellore and Another… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D,NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'16397 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S Sri Vigneswara Rythu Depot, Nellore Rep. by its^proprietor Pidakala Sudheer Reddy.

¶9

Pidakala Sudheer Reddy, Proprietor.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State Of Telangana, rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶13

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Agri Business Represented by^its Authorised person Sri L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o Sri Rama Murthy Zonal office at Door No.3-3-41'1 , 2nd Floor, Opp. SBI bank, RTC Colony, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad500035.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 92 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble 1st Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District against^the petitioners/Al and A2.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLPMP. NO: 1852't OF 2016)

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^High Court^{may be} pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.No. 92 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble 1't Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri S.SYAIVI} SUNDER RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the^{Assistant Public Prosecutor} (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M.P.BHARGHAV,^{Advocate for} the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE TIC'N'BLB DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16397 of 2At6

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is fi]ed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash C.C.No.92 of 2016 on the l-rle of I Special Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶25

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder:

¶26

a) Respondent. No.2 i.e., M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business represented by its authorized person Sri L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao has fiied a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable [nstruments Act against the petitioners alleging that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who have been doing pesticide dealership business have approached respondent No.2 Company for supply of agro chemicals and on believing the creditworthiness of the pqtitioners, an account is opened in the name of the petitioners and went on supplying agro chemicals on credit. On repeated requests about the money to be paid to

¶27

¶28

the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant, the petitioners have issued a cheque bearing No.040882 dated 72.02.2016 for Rs. 1,63,893/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Nellore Branch towards full and final settlement.

¶29

b) Respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant Company has presented the said cheque in HDFC Bank Limited, L.B. Nagar Branch on 15.02.2016 and the same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement "lnsufficient Funds". Respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has issued a statutory notice dated 12.03.2016 calling upon the petitioners to pay the amount under the dishonoured cheque within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶30

c) The petitioners, though acknowledged the receipt of legal notice, have not responded to the notice or paid the amount. Hence, the Respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint against the petitioners under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar and subsequently the complaint was transmitted to I Special Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram wherein the cognizance of the case was taken cognizance as C.C.No.92 of 2016.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.92 of 2016 on the file of I Special Magistrate Court, Ranga Redd1, District at Hasthinapuram, on the grounds that the complaint is filed on behalf of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business as General Power of Attorney Holder. As per the resolution dated 30.08.201 I of the Board of Directors of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business, the power of attorney was given to L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao for a period of two years from the date of execution, which is 3O.O8.2O11 or till the attorney ceases to be in the employment of the company, whichever is earlier. Thus, the GPA expires by 30.08.2013 and whereas the complaint is filed on 27.04.2016. Thereby, as on the date of complaint, since the person, who has filed the complaint, has no authority to file the complaint, the petitioners sought for quashment of C.C.No.92 of 2016.

¶32

Now the point for determination is:

¶33

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. l and 2 in C.C.No.92 of 2016 on the file of I Special Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶34

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant. As seen from the record, on 29.07,2022, this Court has posted the case to 05.08.2022 for hearing of respondent No.2 as last chance. On 10.08.2022 also there was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2, as such the arguments on behalf of respondent No.2 are treated as heard.

¶36

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have not disputed regarding the opening of the account by them with the respondent No.2 Company and receiving pesticides and falling due amount, issuing cheque for Rs.1,63,893 / - in favour of respondent No.2 Company and also that the same was presented by the Respondent No.2 company and was not honoured by the petitioners' bank.

¶37

The only technical question raised by the petitioners is that the person, who has fiied the complaint on behalf of respondent No. 2 -de-facto complainant has no authority as on the date of alleged offence to lodge complaint on behalf of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business. The power of attorney, dated 30.08.20 1 1, which was given to authorized

¶38

¶39

)

¶40

person i.e., L.\2. Mallikarjuna Rao is filed before the Court as one of the documents by the petitioners, wherein one Arun K Nanda one of the directors of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business has executed the said power of attorney in the presence of notary of India, authorizing L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao to file criminal cases on behalf of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business in the states against the dealers under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This can be found at clause 6 of the power of attorney. However, the proviso of the said por.ver of attorney would go to show that the power of attorney granted under the said instrument will be in force for a period of two years from the date of execution or till the attorney ceases to be in the employment of the company, whichever is earlier. It is also specifically mentioned that thereafter the power of attorney shall not be entitled to exercise any of the said powers.

¶41

Therefore, on perusal of the power of attorney, the person, who has Iiled a complaint was having authority until two years from the date of execution i.e., 30.08.2011, which would be 30.08.2013. As on the date of filing complaint i.e., on 27.O4.2016, the said L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao ceased to be power of attorney holder and has no authority to hle the compiaint on

¶42

¶43

behalf of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business. Once, the person, who has filed the complaint, has not authority, it is deemed that the person, who has filed the compiaint is a stranger to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Agri Business, so far as the dishonour of the cheque. Either the ManAglng Director of the said Company or some authorized representative of the Compaay ought to have Iiled the complaint.

¶44

It is to be seen that five years after expiry of the GpA dated 30.08.201 1 the GpA holder has filed complaint against the petitioners and no attempt has been made by the Respondent No. 2 - Complainant Company to renew the GpA and file one more renewed GpA even until as on today. After filing of the present criminai petition seeking quashment on the ground that the person, who has filed complaint, has no authority, the respondent No. 2 complainant has not taken any interest to see that the power of attorney, which was given to L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao is renewed with effect from 3O.08.2O13.

¶45

10..^.In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into consideration of the bar mentioned in the proviso of the GPA dated 30.08.2011, the power, which was given in favour of

¶46

L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao has been ceased as on 3O.0g.2013 and also specificaily mentioned that he cannot exercise any of the powers in the said GpA after expiry of two years from the date of execution or till the attorney ceases to be in the employment of the company, whichever is earlier. Since L.V.Mallikarjuna Rao has filed this complaint under Section 13g of the Negotiable Instruments Act after expiry of time, he has no authority to file the same' on this sole ground, the compraint is liabre to be quashed againsr the pedtioners in C.C.No.9 2 of 2Ol6on the file of I Special Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram.

¶47

1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the

¶48

proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2016 on the file of I Special Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram

¶49

agalnst the petitioners -accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby quashed.

¶50

As a sequel, the miscellaaeous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

SD/. I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUW REGISTRAR ! l/)

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

¶55

1 . The 1't Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, RangaReddy District. 2. Two CCs to THE PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court ior the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. One CC to SRl. S SYAMSUNDER RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRl. l\4.P BHARGAV, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

I ELAiV
)
,# s
il"; .c._,
(-'a
Iii,:hr a
. /:
.]

¶61

ORDER

¶62

CRLP.No.16397 of 2016

¶63

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT COSTS,

¶64

a
)),
,>

M/S Sri Vigneswara Rythu Depot, Nellore and Another v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Vigneswara Rythu Depot, Nellore and Another v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Moiz Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Singirala Sathyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana And Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist. Vs Kothamandi Kishan Rao, Nizamabad Dist., and 2 Ano.

Banoth Narayana Singh Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and 2 Others

V.Laxman Reddy Vs M/s. Bhavani Mills, rep. by its Prop. Third B. Harish Patel

Mohd. Imran Khan Vs L. Satyanarayana and Another