Allowed

N.K. Theaters Pvt. Ltd. v. The state of Telanagana

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022CRLP/281/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed private proceedings in C.C.No.12591 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC. The Court held that since a prior petition regarding the same cheque dishonour matter was quashed on the ground that the company was not made a party, the subsequent private complaint failed to meet legal requirements and lacked essential allegations of dishonest intention.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 12591 of 2019 filed before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, were quashed.

N.K. Theaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs The state of Telanagana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

I,,IONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF^JUNE

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE^K.LAKSHMAN

¶8

CRIM INAL PETITION^{NO: 281 OF 2020}

¶9

Between:

¶10

N.K. Theaters Pvt Ltd,^{(Corporateldentity No. IJ9212OAP2O11PTC073302)} Rep. by its authorized^{personlvlr. Natti Kumar S/o. N. Venkat Rao Aged42} years, R/o. H.No. 8-3-658/5,2nd Floor, Hasini^{Residency,Jayaprakash Nagar} Yellareddyguda, Yousufguda,^Hyderabad.

¶11

Vishaka Talkies Private Limited,^{Rep. by its Director tvlr.Natti Kumar S/o. N.} Venkat Rao, Aged 42^{years, R/o. H.No.8-3-658/5,2nd Floor, Hasini} Residency, Jayaprakash Nagar,^{Yellareddyguda,Yousufguda,Hyderabad} (Natti Kumar is not authorized^person as^alleged)

¶12

Mr. Natti Kumar, S/o.^{N. Venkat Rao, Aged42 years, Occ.Business, R/o'} H.No. 8-3-658/5, 2nd FIoor,^{HasiniResidency, JayaprakashNagar,} Yellareddyguda, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

¶13

...pETlTloNERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Telanagana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at} HYderabad'

¶16

.....RESP.NDENT.

¶17

Screen Digital and Offset^{Printers Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its lVlanagingDirectorIt'4r.} Attluri Rajpal Choudary, S/o.^{Late Nagabushanam, aged 45 years,R/o. H.No.} 8-3-31 9/8/'1 0, Yelireddyguda,^Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶19

Petitiorr under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the lvlemorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be} pleased to quash the private compiaint bearing C.C.No.^{12591of 2019 on the file} of the Learned lll Additional Chief^{Metropolitanl/agistrate, Hyderabad for the} offence under section 406,^{42O and 506 IPC against the petitionersNo 1 to} 3/Accused No. 1 to 3.

¶20

l.A. NO:1OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay be}

¶22

pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 12591 of 2019 including personal appearance of petitioner/Accused No. 1 to 3 on the file of the Learned lll Ad,iitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad^{pending disposal of the} Crininal petition.

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the^Memorandum of^r3rounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Sri S MADAN} MOHAN RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutoron behalfof} the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Manthripagada^{VenkataHanmanthaRao,} Ad,/ocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{NNo.281 OF 2020}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed^{under Section482 of} Criminal Procedure^{Code (hereinafterreferredas 'Cr'P'C'')to} quash the proceedings^{in C.C.No.12591 of 2019 pendingon the} file of the learned III^{AdditionalChief MetropolitanMagistrate,} Hyderabad.

¶28

Heard Sri.S.Madan^{MohanRao, learnedCounsel for} the petitioner,^{learned Public Prosecutor for the State'} Sri.M.V.Hanumantha^{Rao, learned counsel appearingfor the} second respondent.

¶29

The petitioners herein^{are accusedNo'1 to 3 in} C.C.No.12591 of^{2019 and the offences alleged againstthe} petitioners are^{underSections 406,420 and 506 of Indian Penal} Code.

¶30

2 4. The allegations leveled against the pctitioners

¶31

herein in the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.p.C are as follows:

¶32

Tl're complainant is in the business of printing, Vinyl pcsters, Flexies, Standees anci Hoarclings

¶33

ll. The third petitioner/accused No.3 approached the complainant and introduced himself as Film producer under tt.e banner of accused No"1. Third petitioner/accusecl No.3 is also representing second peti tioner/ accused No.2.

¶34

Tl-rird petitioner/accused No.3 has represented with

¶35

the seconcl respondent that the second petitioner/accused No.2 produced some Telugu and dubbing films and requested the cc mplainant to print the film advertisements with Flexi posters, Standees and Hoardings etc., ar-rcl accordingly the second respondent has undertook the said work. The names of the mcvies are also specifically mentioned in the saicl complaint.

¶36

lv. To get the saicl work done, the second respondent ha S to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- to Max/Flex and \ 1 IIrraglng Systems Pvt., Ltcl., from which the seconcl respondent

¶37

-//

¶38

¶39

has obtained material^{on credit basis.Thus, the petitioners}

¶40

herein have to^{pay an amount of Rs.28,93,5741-to the second} respondent.

¶41

v. Thircl petitioner/accused^{No.3 has issued two} cheques bearing^{No.000130 dated 25-"12-2013for Rs'5,00,000/-} drawn on Kotak^{MahendraBank, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad and} another cl'reque^{bearing No.000055dated 29-07-2014 for} Rs.5,00,000/- drawn^{on AndhraBank,} ]ubilee^{Hills, Hyderabad'}

¶42

vi. On deposit of^{said cheques for clearance,they were} dishonoured with^{an endorsementfunds insufficient'}

¶43

viii. Third petitioner/accused^{No'3 has also issued} another cheque bearing^{No.000117dated 17-09-2012 fot} Rs.95,000/- drawn on^{Kotak Mahendra Bank issued on behalf} of second petitioner.^{Third petitioneris also authorized} signatory of the second^petitioner'

¶44

ix. Since the above^{said chequeswere dishonoured,the} second respondent/complainant^{has filed a complaint vide} C.C.No.295 of^{2014 against the third petitioner alone for the} offence under Section^{138 of NegotiableInstruments Act, after}

¶45

¶46

complying with the legaI forrnalitics such as issuance of stafutory notice etc.,

¶47

x Third petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C vide C.C.No.9024 of 2014 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.295 of 201.4 on the ground that though tJre cheques were issued by first petitioner comparry herein r,lpresentecl by third petitioner hercir.r, the company was not nrade as party. This Court relying on the principle laic1 down in Aneetha Hada Vs. I\4/s.God Father Tours and Travelsr, of Supreme Court, allowed the said petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.295 of 2014.

¶48

xl. It is further alleged that there is no bar for filing complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the petitioners herein as present complaint is within the limitation and then tire petitioner with a dishonest intention, to cheat the complainant by taking some technical grounds to avoid f,ayments^{the accusedapproached the Hon'bleHigh Court and} got the proceedings quashed.

'^uotz 1s;^scco6r

,,1

With the saicl submissions, the second respondent

¶53

has filed the above said complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magish'ate has taken cognizance of thc aforesaid offences.

¶54

Sri.S.Madan Mohan Rao, Iearned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offences allegecl against the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate without considering the fact that the proceedings in C.C.No.294 of 201,4 fiied by the second respondent against thc third petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable InsLruments Act were quashed, therefore, with the very same allegations the second respondent cannot file a second cornplaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the same is not permissiblc under Law.

¶55

He would further submit that the petitioners No.1 to 3/ Accused No.1 to 3 never signed on invoices, bills as alleged and they are forgecl and fabricated. The signatures on the bills does not tally at all ancl does not belong to the

¶56

()

¶57

petitioner No.3/accused No.3. The third petitioner/accused

¶58

lJo.3 is not authorized signatory of accused No.2 at any time, vuithout considering the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and he has also placed reliance on the p,rinciple laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Veer l'rakash Sharma Vs., Anil Kumar Agarwal and another2, llrishnalal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, T'.T.Antony Vs., State of Keralaa, Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and others5.

¶59

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the contents of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C constitute the offenccs atleged against thc petitioners herein. The defence taken by the petitioners are briable issues and the petitioner has to take the

¶60

t :tooz (u) scc tz.l t:ro:t (c) scc tst '^:roo t 1r,1 scc^{r sr} 1 :t00,1 ( t-l) scc 291

¶61

¶62

¶63

same cluring the course of trial and it is for thc trial Court to

¶64

cor-rsicler the same.

¶65

Sri.M.V.Hanumantha Rao, lcarned counsel

¶66

appearing for the second respondent, places reliance on a Judgment^{of Full Bench of} this Court in OPTS Marketing (Pvt.,) Ltd., and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others6, would submit that the present complaint ts maintainable and quashing the earlier proceedir.rgs on technical grounds is not a bar to maintain the present complaint. The contents of the complaint constitute the alleged offences against the petitioner herein.

¶67

'10. With the said submissions, he sougltt to dismiss thc,

¶68

prescrlt CriminaI Petition.

¶69

In view of the above said facts, it is relevant to notc

¶70

that there were disputes between the petitioners ar.rd the scconcl

¶71

o zoo t 1t; eLo s6t

¶72

¶73

¶74

responclent r,r, ith regard to the entrustment^{of advertisement of} the movies anc-l also to print the film^{flexies,postersetc.,}

¶75

According to the complainant,^{he has taken material} from Max/Flex and Imaging Systems^{Pvt., Ltd', on cash and} credit basis worth Rs.18,00,000/-.^{The secondrespondenthas} extracted thc work which is valued^{atRs.28,93,574/-. Third} petitioner has to pay the said amount.

¶76

'13. It is also not in dispute that the first petitioner represented by the third petitioner^{had issued abovetwo} cheq ues, oll presentation, the same were^dishonoured. l'herefore, the second respondent^{has filed a complaint uncler} Siection 200 of Cr.P.C^{videC.C.No.295 of 2014againstonly third} pctitioner herein for the offence^{underSection138 of Negotiable} Insh'unrerrts Act. The second respondent^{has not rladethe first} accused to the saici^comPlaint petitioner company as llherefore, third petitioner herein^{had filed petitionunder} liection 482 of Cr.P.C vide Criminal^{Petition No-9024of 201.4} :;eekinl; to quasl'r the proceedings in^{C.C.No.295of 2014 on the}

¶77

¶78

¶79

ground that the second respondent has not arrayed^{the first} petitioner herein as^'accused' in the said Calendar Case.

¶80

¶81

It is also not in dispute that this Court vide Orcler clated 01-02-2019 allowed the saicl Crimir-ral Petition^{No.9024 of} 2014 on the ground that the second responclent has not^rnade the first petitioner company herein as party,^{therefore,the} question of vicarious liability even for the^{ManagingDirector of} tl-re Company does not arise including under^{Section141 of the} Ncgotiable Instruments Act, ancl the law is fairll, settled from the expression of the Apex Court in Aneetha^{Hada'scase cited} supra.

¶82

It is relevant to note that the saicl Order in Criminal Petition is dated 07-02-2019. The second^{respondenthas filed} the above saicl complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C on^22-07- 2079 i.e., after lap,se of almost six months. It is also relevant to note that the Full Bench of this Court in OPTS Marketing (I'vt.,) Ltd., cited supra, held that the complaint loclged for^the offence utrder Section 420 of Indian Penal Cocle^{is maintainable}

¶83

¶84

€vet1 after introduction of Section 138 of the Negotiable Irstruments Act, in case of dishonour of cl-reques or post-dated cheques issueci towards payment of price of the goods purchased, or haud loan taken, or in discharge of an antecedent cl ebt, or towards payment of goods supplier, earlier, if the c harge-shect contains ar-r allegation that the accused had d ishor-rest intention not to pay even at the time of issuance of the cheque, and the act of issuing the cheque, which was dishonoured, caused damage to his mind, body or reputation, private complaint or FIR alleging offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code for dishonour of cheques or post-dated cheques carulot be quashecl underSection 482Cr.P.C., if the averments in the complaint show that the accused had, with a dishorrest intention and to cause damage to his mind, body or rr:putation, issued tl-re cheque which was not honoured

¶85

L.r the said case, no complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. The Futl Bench also examineri the facts of the said case, and held that

¶86

¶87

¶88

whether the complainant i.e., payee suffered clamage to^his mind, body or reputation has to be decided on the basis of the evidence aclduced b), hi*. If the complainant alleges, and proves that the accused had a dishonest intention not to palr the amount due to l-rim even at the time of^issuance of^{the cheque,,} and that such issuance of the cheque, which^{was dishonoured,} had caused damage to his mind, body or rePutation, the ingreclients of Section 420 Indian Penal Cocle can be said to have been established, and in such an event, the drawer can be convictec{ for an offence under Section 420 Indian^Penal Code. If thcre is no such reliable, or acceptable evidence, accused^is entitlecl to be acquitted.

¶89

'L7. In the said complaint, there was a specific allegation

¶90

that tl're accused had dishonest intention t.rot to pay even at the time of issuancc of the cheque. Coming to the facts on hand, perusal of the complaint filed under Section 2-00 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vitle C.C.No.294 of 2014 and also subsequent cornplaint^{filecl uncler}

¶91

¶92

Sectior.r 200 Cr.P.C., for tl.re offence punishable under section 406, 420 ancl 506 Indian Penal Cocle vide C.C.No.72597 of 2019 vrould reveal that there is no allegation that the accused has ir;sued the cheques r.l.ith clishonest intention and to cause i amage to complainant's mincl, body, or reputation.

¶93

It is relevant to note that the second respondent has filed the above complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide C.C.No.295 of 201.4 on26-03-201.4 ancl the said proceedirrgs were quashed by this Court vide Order dated C1-02-20"19 in Criminal Petition No.9024 of 201.4. Six months thereafter, the seconcl respondent had filed the present complaint i.e., on 22-07-2019. There are no allegations in the said complaint that the petitioner herein/accused had clishonest intention not to pay even at the time of issuance of the cheque, and the act o[ issuing the cheque, which was clishonourecl, caused damage to his mind, body or reputation. lll.re said allcgations are lacking in the present cornplaint. lll.rercfore, the facts of tl.re case in OPTS Marketing (Pvt.,) Ltd.,

¶94

¶95

citccl supra, arc clifferent to tl're^{facts of the presentcasc.} Moreover, the complaint filed under Section^{200 Cr.P.Cvide} C.C.No.12591 of 2019 lacks the above allegations.^Therefore, the contents of the present complaint^{lacks the ingredientsof} the offences atteged against^{the petitionersherein.Therefore,} the proceeclings in C.C.No.72591'^{of 2019 against the petitioners} herein are tiable to be quashed.

¶96

In view of the above said principle and^{also the} discussion, the proceedings in^{C.C.No.1126 of 2020 pending on} the file of the learned XXIV Additional^Metropolitan Magistrate, Havarthnagar at Cyberabad,^{Rangareddy District,} cannot go or1 and accordingly, the same^{are Iiable to be} qu;rshed.

¶97

Accorciingly, this Criminal Petition^{is allowecland} tlre tl-re procecclings in C.C.No.12591^{of 2019 pending on thc file} of the learr.recl lll Additional Chief Metropolitan^Magistrate, Hyderabacl, arr: he'reby quasl-red.

¶98

¶99

¶100

As a secluel, tl.re Miscellarreous Petitiorrs, pending if an1,,

¶101

shall star"rd closecl

¶102

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶103

,TRUE COPY//

¶104

SEcrrforrrcen