Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1293 (AP)

Rayani Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-12

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Civil Judge), Guntur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows : (a) Accused No.1-Krishna Agencies is a Partnership Firm, accused No.2 is the Managing Partner and petitioner/accused No.3 is one of the partners. (b) To meet the business necessities, accused No.1, represented by accused No.2 opened a Khata on 07.09.2019 and purchased cotton seed hulls from the complainant Company-Sri Raja Rajeswari Cotton Traders, which deals with the business in sale and supply of cotton seed hulls, cotton lint and maize. Subsequently accused No.1 also purchased cotton lint and maize from the complainant on credit and all the said transactions were duly entered in the said Khata. (c) On repeated requests, on 21.11.2019, accused made part payment of Rs.25,300/- by way of NEFT through the account of accused No.1 with Syndicate Bank, Brundavan Gardens Branch, Guntur and thereafter, no payment has been done by the accused. (d) By 30.12.2019 the amount due to the complainant by the accused was Rs.82,69,225.68 ps. Thereafter several demands, accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1-Firm had issued three Cheques Bearing Nos.943575, 943576 and 943577 for Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs respectively drawn in favour of the complainant on Syndicate Bank, Brundavan Gardens Branch, Guntur, towards part payment of the outstanding amount and requested the complainant not to present the said cheques till 15.02.2020 stating that the funds will be arranged in the account of A1-Firm by accused Nos.2 and 3. (e) Thereafter on 10.02.2020, accused No.2 again requested the complainant not to present the said cheques assuring that the funds will be arranged by the end of February, 2020, but the accused failed to keep up their promise. Again on 02.03.2020 accused No.1 issued another Cheque Bearing No.943578 for Rs.33 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment and requested to present all the four cheques after 10.03.2020. Again on 02.03.2020 accused No.1 issued another Cheque Bearing No.943578 for Rs.33 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment and requested to present all the four cheques after 10.03.2020. However, after issuance of the cheque dated 02.03.2020, accused No.2 got issued a legal notice dated 05.03.2020 to the complainant with all false and baseless allegations for which, the complainant got issued a suitable reply on 12.03.2020 intimating about the presentation of the said cheques before the Bank. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said four cheques with his banker i.e., ICICI Bank, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur on 16.03.2020 three cheques were returned due to "Insufficient Funds" and the fourth cheque was returned for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer" under Memos dated 18.03.2020. Hence, the complainant lodged a private complaint against all the accused which was numbered as CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. Grounds Sought for Quashment : 3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the said case, petitioner/accused No.3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds : (i) The cheques alleged to have been issued were only towards security but not for discharge of any enforceable liability and the petitioner herein is only a sleeping partner of A1-Firm and he has not managed the affairs of A1-Firm. Petitioner is also not a signatory of the said cheque. (ii) Nowhere in the complaint, the liability of petitioner/accused No.3 has not been demonstrated. In the absence of the signature of the petitioner in the joint account, which was opened in the name of the Firm, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. (iii) Petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offence much less the payment of cheque amounts as accused No.2 is the authorized person to deal with the business on behalf of A1-Firm. (iv) Being the sleeping partner, the petitioner is not responsible for the day-to-day activities of A1-Firm. (v) The allegations against the petitioner in the complaint are vague and unfounded. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri P. Ravindra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Prudhvi Teja, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. (v) The allegations against the petitioner in the complaint are vague and unfounded. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri P. Ravindra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Prudhvi Teja, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/accused No.3 is the sleeping partner of A1-Firm and he is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of A1-Firm. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner has not signed on the alleged cheques and it is the accused No.2, who signed on the said cheques on behalf of A1-Firm. Learned Counsel would submit that no case is made out against the petitioner. To buttress his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Telangana in Kodam Danalakshmi v. State of Telangana and another, 2021 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1000 (TS). 6. Contrasting the same, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that petitioner is one of the Partners of A1-Firm having an equal share of 50% in the said firm alongwith accused No.2 and he is also an active partner. Learned Counsel further submits that, at the threshold, the complaint against the petitioner cannot be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, (2023) 10 SCC 685 . Point for determination : 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Civil Judge), Guntur? Determination by the Court : 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C., makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 Cr.P.C., jurisdiction is not functioning as a Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. As seen from the complaint, accused No.1 represented by accused No.2 purchased cotton lint and maize from the complainant-Company on credit basis and thereafter, on repeated demands, accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1-Firm had issued four Cheques Bearing Nos.943575, 943576, 943577 and 943578 for Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.33 lakhs respectively drawn on Syndicate Bank, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment and on presentation, the said cheques were returned. 10. Section 141 of the Act is an exception to the normal rule that there cannot be any vicarious liability when it comes to a penal provision. The vicarious liability is attracted when the ingredients of sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act are satisfied. The section provides that every person, who, at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the Company, as well as the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In the light of sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act, a perusal of the Deed of Partnership dated 11.06.2019 would clearly shows that A1-firm is a Partnership firm in which accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Partners. It is further averred in the said Deed that accused Nos.2 and 3 are holding equal share of 50% each in the net profit or loss of the said Firm and the account of the said Firm can be operated by any one of the partners. The Agreement further reveals that, both accused Nos.2 and 3 are joint and severally responsible for all the borrowings which shall be binding on AI-Firm. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner/accused No.3 that the said cheque was issued without his consent or knowledge. This is sufficient to put the petitioner/accused No.3 to trial for the alleged offence. The Agreement further reveals that, both accused Nos.2 and 3 are joint and severally responsible for all the borrowings which shall be binding on AI-Firm. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner/accused No.3 that the said cheque was issued without his consent or knowledge. This is sufficient to put the petitioner/accused No.3 to trial for the alleged offence. The contention of the petitioner that, at the time of issuance of the cheque, he was not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of A1-Firm, cannot be accepted on the basis of mere bald assertion in this regard. To prove his case, the petitioner is expected to lead unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence. If the petitioner wants the case to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is really not concerned with the issuance of the alleged cheque, he must either furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contention. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the case of the petitioner. There are disputed questions of fact which are to be decided during trial by the Trial Court. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible to act as if it were a Trial Court. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the case against the petitioner/accused No.3. 13. Without prejudice to the defences available, the criminal petition is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.