High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Ct P 'C p1'Y1ng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"tt?*Ot of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be oleased to quash *" pr.i'i"]"0'"gJ against'tne petitioners/ accused No '1 (tn .o iar as representative Jffili;kierned)'and'i-in s r' C (Nl) No 790 of ooJll"'"'ii;; :";;; - itt Roat Metropolitan Masistrate' 2022 on the rile , ' 'n Lo"n, i it rrrr."igl,i District at Kuakatpally' t.A. NO: 60F 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr 'P 'C prayino that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr#"tt"r"*OJ'oi Cti*inlf F"tition. the High Court may I.A. NO:1OF 2025 I I I I I I : i ; I t l t i I t { ,r*6' *i"J , petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C pravin stated in the Memorandtrm ot Grounds of criminar fl-ll3t iS,; T :H J ",.,if it Xl*i ffi I.A. NO:2O F 2024 * " ;'S " [".1T I ; lli .tt.," circumstances ",X :l U :l I "1,,f ^" ''1ru Petition u nder Secl stated rn tn" ru""".,"0'#":tt?'"J;"".;i3''flfiliig^llat in'the circumstances !3,?'r'.TJ:^iJ'?;3.,:?;li";r,,ll,ts#l,itt!,1'5,"f ;LXiXili;:n:TxI t.A. NO: 40F 2024 Petition under Sect. stated in r,e r,r",o",an"a",i,lol,Lu,:J.:r.:i.....,,flii]iT tF, in..the circumstances iSffi ".TJ:^iJ,ffi ;T+;;,l"limS#"f ,L!U?";ili"X,?,i,.^"ffi TXI t.A. NO :2 OF 2025 * ::d1 ]iq t:l,';; i","JT t?ilL.' :i 5 g"^i;:1# :?;Z:;^,;; t.A. NO:5OF 2024 iil I T r r, i n t h e c i rc u m s t a n c e s int",i, .t,y oI:r;i":i;)Aiirz:lfil li: l]i:? ?ii:;rTir, "?,,i . Petition under Section 482 of Cr. p.C oravinr stated in the Memorand-u-m of Grounds of criminil 3^lll11 ''"*" circumstances be pleased to extend the i ri ptrv_J, ; ,' ;; ;:;; L :jlin j;: .i',ff #;iiT, j::":, ?X,.^",^j: T :I z o z + i n _c I.A. N O:8OF 2024 Petition under Section .4^g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrm,ot crounos-"i c"ri,iiili i"tition, the Higt couit.r;uy be pteased to extend the interrm oro"i. J"tIi'i'ifrie'nozopassed in r.A. No 7 or 2024 in CRL. p No 1 684 of zoz+ untii ruriiei;rl;;:, l.A. NO:9 oF 2024 Petition under Section .4^g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum ot croun-os-"i c"ri#l"li i.titio_n, the High court may be pteased to extend the hterim ",J;;r;rt"l;rtbi,zozq passed in t.A.No,8 of 2024 in Crt.p.No. 1684 of zO2+ untitiurt-n;;;;";:"" I I t.A. NO: 30F 2025 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr'P C. playins that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"tt?*aJ'oi Cr.i'inir Fetition' the High court may iomiozs passed in lA No 01 of he oreased to extend tn" li[iii'"'o;;;';J ;i5l; Crl P No 1684 until further orders' t.A. N O:7OF 2024 petition under section 482 0f cr.p.c playl!-rg that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrr""f L?*-Os ot Crimlnif petition. the High Court may I"t"J os/o 712024 passed in I A No G of be oleased to extend ftt" iltliiX' I6iai" ci p.rG. ros+ ot 2024 untit further orders' l.A. NO: 30F 2024 "to"it Petition under Section 482 ot Ct P'C playlng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrr"otL"r-"*-.. oi Cri.inif Fetition, the High Court may be oleased to extend th" i;;#;;;J" J"["0 fito3t2o24 passed in lA No l of fii; i;il p r.ro. roe+ of 2024 until further orders t.A. NO :1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C playing that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr."ot L"r-o*-Os ot Crimnif petition. the High Court may p'oceedings. including appearance of the be oleased to stay aff oetitioners/ accused ruo' r fin''oJ""as r"p'et6ntative capicity is concerned) and lAddl Junior- cum - Xll ) in s. r. c (Nl) No.7e0 "I',;;;i:""tn"ili" "i!911"d Addl. Metropolltan Magistrltel' fr"o"n"frtaufkajglri District at Kuakatpally 't""tnei - This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the t\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal p"1't'on and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy' Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the ResponOeni t'lo f and of Sri Eranki Phani Kumar' Advocate for the ResPondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I I l I i 5 ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN cRIMINAL PETITI NNo.16 84 of 2o24 o Heard Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Eranki phani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2

2. This Criminal petition is filed under Section _ 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973, to guash the proceedings against the petitioners_accused rn S.T.C (NI) No.79O of 2022 on the file of I Additiona_l Junior Civit Judge_cum_XII Additional Metropolital Magistrate, Medchal_Malk4ygiri District at Kukatpa_lly for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1Bg1 (for short ..N.I. Nos. 1 and 2 Act,,).

3. The petitioners herein fiiecl present crimina_l petition contending that he has submitted his resignation for the post of Directorship of petitioner_accused No.1 Company on 22.O5.2019. Accused No.1 Compaly had also l I I KL,J Crlp.No.1684 2021 Z submitted statutory Form DIR-12 wftin the Registrar of Companies acknowled'ging resignation of the petitioner' In proof of the same, he has filed copy of Form DIR-12' Therefore, as on the date of issuance of subject cheque bearing No.888664, dated 3l'O3'2021 ' petitioner No'2 herein is not a director of petitioner No'1-accused No'1 Company. Respondent No'2 knowing the same' hied the aforesaid complaint against him' Having considered the fact that the petitioner trerein is no more the Director of accused No. 1 company' vide order date<l 1O'OB'2023 in Crl.P.No.5655of2022,ttreHighCorrrtofKarnataka quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C'C' No.l27 12 of 2022 registered for the similar offence' Therefore, continuation of proceedings in S.T.C (NI) No.79O of 2022 against the petitioners is an abuse thus, PraYed to quash the process of law and, proceedings against the petitioners '

4. Whereas, learned' counsel for respondent No'2 contended that the said aspects are triable issues' The J ,,., .l i I ,l I I l ! { I I KL,J Crlp.No.l684 2024 petitioner has to face triar, prove the sarne and it is for the trial Court to consider the said aspects. As far as petitioner No.1 Accused No.1 IS concerned, it is a company and proceeclings cannot be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Anita Malhotra v Apparel Export Promotion Councilr and Adhiraj Singh v Yograj Singh2 rendered by the Honble Supreme Court. Section

6. Perusal of record would reveal that petitioner No.2 has fiied a Criminal petition No.5655 of 2022 under before the High Court of Karnataka to quash the entire proceedings against him in C.C.No.l27t2 of 2022 (PCR.No.4269 of 2022) for the 482 of Cr.p.C offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Petitioner No.2 herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the said case. It is also contended that petitioner No.2 herein, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C. '1:otz.; r scc::o ' MANtJi SCOR/159020i 202l -t KL, CrlP.No.1684 -2024; 4 No.t2712 of 2O22and Managing Director of accused No'1 Company ceased to be the Director of the Company on 22.O5.2Olg,which is evident from Form DIR - 12 issued by the Registrar of Companies and the subject cheque in the sard case was issued on l5'O7 '2021' On consideration of ttre said facts' Criminal Petition No'5655 of 2022 was allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 127 12 of 2022 were qrrashed against petitioner No.2 herein by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

7. In Anita Malhotra (1 supra)' the appellant therein had resigned from the post of Directorship of the company w.e.f. 31.08.1998, whereas cheques were issued on 01.06.2004. She has filed certified copy of annual return of the company for the succeeding year of her resignation as obtained from Registrar of Companies and r'rncertihed copy of Form-32 along with acknowledgment' On consideration of the sarne, tLre Apex Court held that annual return is a public document in terms of the I I I I i I : l i I I 1 I ' i , 'l/ 5 c,rp N. ros+ [!j provrsions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section - 74 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, IBT2.Accordingly, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused therein. I i I i I I

8. Even in Adhiraj Singh (2 supra), the Apex Court reiterated the said principle and quashed the proceedings against the appellant therein for the offence under Section - 138 of N.I. Acr.

9. In the light of the said principle, as discussed supra, in the present case also, petitioner No.2 herein had submitted his resignation on 22.O5.2O1g for the post of directorship of petitioner No. I - accused No.1 Company ancl a-lso submitted statutory Form DIR-12 with the Registrar of Companies acknowledging resignation of petitioner No.2. Form DIR-12 is a public document in terms Section - 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.

10. Section - 74 deals with 'public documents'and the same is reproduced hereunder: I KI-,J Crlp.No.1684-2021r 6 "74. Public documents'-The followtng (i) documents are public d'ocuments: Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts - (i) of the sovereign authority' (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers' legislative, judiciat and executive' of any part of India or of the Commonwealth' or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept in any State of private documents'" Respondent No'2 failed to produce any document/ evidence to dispute the same and to disbelieve Form DIR- t2. 11. As stated above, petitioner No'2 herein had submitted his resignation for the post of Directorship of petitioner No.1 - accused' No'1 Company on 22'O5'2OI9' whereas the subject cheque bearing No'888664 was issued on 31.03'2O2I i'e'' after resignation kry petitioner No.2 herein for the post of Directorship of petitioner No' 1- accused No. 1 Company' Therefore' petitioner No'2 herein is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of accused No.l Company' Thus, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of N I' Act' ,i { t 7 c.lp.N".l684 ;:j

12. As f:rr as petitioner No. 1 _ accused No.1 Company is concernecl, the offence alleged to have committed by the Company as the cheque was issuecl in the name of accused No.1. However, as discussed above, since the proceedings against petitioner No.2 being the Director of accused No.1 are held to be quashed, the proceedings agarnst him in the capacity of Managing Director of accused No.1 company cannot be continued. Thus, the proceedings in STC (NI) No.790 of 2022 cannot be continued against accused No.1 represented by accused No.2. However, the proceedings in the said STC (NU No.79O of 2022 can be continuecl against accused No. 1 represented by the present Managing Director.

13. In view of the above discussion, continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.2 in the subject C.C nothing but an abuse of process of 1aw. .lherefore. proceedings against petitioner No.2 herein are liable to be quashed. 1S I I KL,J CrlP.No' 1684-20lln l) 8 this Criminal

14. In the light of the aforesaid discusslon' in S.T.C (NI) Petition is allowed and the proceedings No.79O of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil MetroPolitan Magistrate, Judge-cum-XII Additional Medchal-Malkajgiri District at KukatPallY, are herebY No.2 herein - accused No'2 quashed against Petitioner alone. As a sequel thereto' miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed' SD'- V.KAVITHA DEPUlY REGISTRAR 1 \ ,ITRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER to'',. Hvderabad (OUT) u,,, Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' r'kutp?llltn" i i;; Cc. io tn" Pubiic Prosecutor' High court fc . ljL""'#il" irli Bala tuonan Reddv' Advocate IoPUC] ;. il; cc i" stl Eranki Phani Kumar' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies state of Telangana at ABK/PSL I I I I I i I I I ! t t 1 I ] i r I I I l I I I l i I i I t I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: O1tO4t2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.1684 of 2024 i I ! ! l I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION - -1--:::_ --a)\- 'r'L nl, 22 AUB 2W l,- t,l 4,.,. .,,-.,