The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. K. Kalyani, Wo K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy Representing M/s Sri Mukunda Enterprises, Addakal, Mahaboobnagar as partner, Aged about 33 years, Occ Business, C/o. Chandra Sekhar lndustries, R/o H. No. 7-94, Sy. No. 491/2 and 9212, Moosapet Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District- 509380

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, High Court, Hyderabad (Formal Party) ...RESPONDENTS'COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of CI.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 C.C. No. 636 of 20 19 pending on the file of the Hon'ble JFCM (Special Mobile Court) at Mahaboobnagar against the Petitioner. LA. NO: 1OF 2O2O 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 STAYall further proceedings in C.C. No.636 of 2019 pending on the file of the Hon'ble JFCM (Special Mobile Court) at Mahaboobnagar against the Petitioner/ Accused. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinr; lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurn,,rnts of Sri MAHESH RAJE, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. E. GANESH. the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.2 and of Sri B. RAlvl/\ RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.SO LB oI2O2O ORDER: This petition is hled under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C) to quash the proceedings in C.C No.636 of 2019, pending on the hle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court) at Mahaboobnagar (herein after referred as "the trial Court") against the petitioner- accused.

2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E.Galesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No'2 - State and Mr' B' Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No' 1'

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15'06'2019' the accused comPany has given an advertisement in the Eenadu daily news paper offering dealerships for starting retail outlets/ stations across Telangala and Andhra Pradesh' for sale of low cost bio-diesel fuel. The complainant-respondent No' 1 is in the business of Rice Mill and that she is a partner in M/s.Chandra Sekhar Rice Industries' The complainant throughanadvertisementintheEenaduTeluguNewspaper- 2 EVY,I CRL.P.No50l8 of2020 approached the representatives/oflicials of p,e1i1i6t ..-accused compan.y for the sale of low cost bio die sr:l fuel and had accepted the offer and agreed to install the r::tail diesel outlet station at Addakal Vitlage and Mandal, Maherboobnagar. The accused. company had instructed the complzdrlant to complete the necessaqz formalities and obtain approval s for installing the retail outlet. The complainalt paid the anrounts as per the terms and conditions of the accused conlpany, but the company did not fulfil its commitment for inslalling the same. Later, the complainant came to know that tho ,rompany neither started supplying the diesel nor returned the d,:p65i1sd amount and he has called on the company several tftnr:s for the return of deposit amount. Then the accused issrtt: d a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000/- in discharge of a legal liability, on presentation, the same r.r,as dishonoured with an endorsr,ment .payment stopped by drawer". The complainant got issur:d a legal notice dated 03.07.2019, but the accused did not pray the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed a complarnr. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the learned Judic,ial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court) at Mahaboobnagar for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotirrble Instrument Act arrd Section 42O oflndian penal Code. 3 EYV'J CRL P No50t6 of 2020

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence, where it is borne out from the record that the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused, but the complainant made agreement with the company and the company has not made a party to this petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not offrciating as Territory Manager on the date of filing of complaint against the petitioner and he has submitted resig-nation on 31.O5.2018 and the same was accepted by the said Company and the accused was relieved ot 26'07 '2018 as territory Manager. lrarned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that 5. without making the company as a party, arraying the petitioner as an accus ed. per se does not attract the said Negotiable Act under the provisions imposed as against the petitioner as stated supra, hence would submit that the proceedings against the petitioner in the said complaint in CC No'636 of 2019 are not only amount to abuse of process law but a-tso harassing the petitioner to undergo trial without there being any liability and hence seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4 Eyf,J CRL.P No50l8 of 2020 -.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel lbr- respondent No. I would strongly submit that it is the petitiore - who is in receipt of notice for bouncing the cheque and th,-r.,e facts are to be examined during course of trial and thereft; re interference of this Court at this preliminar5r stage is no, warra-rrted as the truth car be elicited after conducting thor,tugh trial. It is further submitted that it is a matter of fact tr,:rt huge amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- is to be paid to the de-facto complainant and it is the duty' to be paid to the de-facto compl:,jnant-respondent No.l aod the trial Court would examine tf e truth on merits, hence interference of this Court is not lvarr,rr.rted and seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for tl-rr: petitioner and iearneri counsel for respondent No. 1 , the Negotiable Instruments Act is a special Act, where the pr.ocedure of law is contemplatt:d under the appropriate provisior-r:; of the Act itself and mtrst be followed in accordance with _I r e principles laid down therein. The case in hand, the petiticn er who has been arrayed as sole accused and the said comp)aint is being tried under Section 138, 142, 143 of NI Act and Ser:tion 42O of IpC. While &il<ing the cognizance, the learned trri,r I Court ought to 5 EWJ CRL.P.No50lE of 202O have examined the said fact that the company has not been made as party to this petition, but assigned the number. This Court vide order dated l4.lO.2O2O granted stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in CC I I No.636 of 2019. Relying upon the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Pawan Kumar Goel u State of U.P.t, wherein it is held that "in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behall", this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not a Territory Manager as on the date of issuance of cheque, therefore, the proceedings before the learned trial Court in CC No.636 of 2Ol9 against the petitioner are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. It is made clear that the order of this Court shall not preclude the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if law permits. I 2022 scc Online SC t598 6 cRL p.N,jo$i{{)i Miscellaneous petitions, pending if a .ry, shall stand (1 clo sed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// $d/- B. REKHA RANI si\:$TANT REGTSTRAR \.\ .. SECTION OFFICER I

1. T.he. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Special Mobile C orrrt) at Manaoooonagar.

2. One CC to Sri Mahesh Raje, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State rl Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies c GR/ I l i HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDER ,':. ? fi li:;r 2fffi CRLP.No.SO18 of 2020 \i. -: .j- . THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ,r( 16I