B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 897 of 1996 on the file of the learned XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petitioners are the accused in C. C. No. 897 of 1996. the first respondent is the company incorporated under the Companies Act. Respondents 2 to 7 are the Directors of the Company.

( 2 ) THE respondents herein filed complaint to punish the petitioners-accused for having committed an offence Under, Section 13 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act ). The allegations levelled in the complaint may briefly be noticed.

( 3 ) THE accused-company is a tenant of the complainant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,80,095. 40 (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand ninty five and paise forty only ). It is also alleged that the accused issued the following cheques towards rent, payable by it to the complainant. 1. Cheque dated 16-4-1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 drawn on Prudential Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, 2. Cheque dated 5-2-1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,095-10 Ps. drawn on S. B. H. Gunfoundry Branch. 3. Cheque dated 5-3-1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,095-40 Ps. drawn on S. B. H. Gunfoundry Branch, Hyderabad. The complainant presented the chequed for encashment and all the three cheques were returned dishonoured on 3-5-1996 with an endorsement "insufficient funds". The complainant thereafter got issued notice dated 4-5-1996 to the accused and the said notices were received by all the Directors. The accused failed to pay the Cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notices. It is under those circumstances, the complaint was filed. The complainant was examined and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case under Section 138 read with 142 of the Act and accordingly directed to issue summons.

( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act represented by its Managing Directors the second petitioner and petitioners 3 to 7 are other Directors of the first petitioner company. In this application to quash the proceedings, the petitioners herein raised number of disputes questions of fact relating to their liability to pay the amount. The petitioners have gone to the extent of saying that the second petitioner having left with no alternative, deposited pay order in Bank account No. 14367 of the respondents at Prudential Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad Branch on 23-5-1996 thereby discharged the liability against the cheques dated 5-2-1996 and 5-3-1996 and 16-4-1996. It is the case of the petitioners that the present case has been filed only to harass the petitioners and any further continuation of the case would result in misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the second petitioner after receipt of the notices on 10-5-1996 discharged liability by depositing the amount due into the Bank account of the respondents on 23-5-1996 i. e. , within the statutory period of 15 days.

( 5 ) I am not inclined to express any opinion whatsoever with reference to the plea taken by the petitioners, inasmuch as it is not possible for this Court to express any opinion on such disputes questions of fact. It is for the petitioners to take the plea and establish the same before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to make enquiry and consider the same. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. PC cannot make any roving enquiry into any disputed questions of fact and record any findings. May be for the said reason, the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri 5. Srinivas Reddy did not urge before this Court to quash the complaint on the said ground stated in the petition. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to express any opinion whatsoever on the question as to whether the petitioners have discharged their liability.

( 6 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document