The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ''the code"), seeking quashing of all further proceedings in CC No. 425 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. A private complaint was filed by the second respondent against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act").

2. The allegations in the complaint are as under:

Accused No. 1 is the company engaged in Real Estate business rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, who is shown as accused No. 2. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the directors of accused No. 1 company. It is alleged in the complaint that when one Mr. T. Sateesh Kumar was unable to lend the required amount in cash, accused No. 2 requested Sateesh Kumar to arrange the funds through any of his mends. As such, both of them approached the complainant, who is known to Mr. Sateesh Kumar, seeking loan of Rs. 1.5 crores. The complainant is said to have verified cash balance and informed accused No. 2 that he would lend an amount of Rs. 1,02,50,000/- only. Accused No. 2 accepted the offer and promised to repay the same before August, 2012. A promissory note was executed by accused No. 2 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 also assured the complainant that they being active directors of accused No. 1 company would take personal responsibility for ensuring repayment of the debt. As the accused failed to repay the same within the time prescribed, the complainant started demanding the accused for repayment of the amount. Thereupon, accused No. 2 gave pre-dated cheques bearing Nos. 709926, 709927, 709928, 709929 and 709930 dated 25.6.2012 for Rs. 5,00,000/- each drawn on A/c No. 30745446921 maintained by accused No. 1 company with the State Bank of India, New Nagole Branch, Alkapuri Cross Road, Hyderabad towards part payment of the loan with an understanding to present the said cheques in the first week of September, 2012.

3. On 10.9.2012 the said cheques when presented at Bank of Baroda, Abids Branch were returned on 11.9.2012 with the remark "payment stopped by drawyer". The complainant got issued a notice, dated 9.10.2012 intimating the accused about the dishonour of cheques and also demanding payment of the cheque amounts within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Though the accused received the notice they failed to make payment of the cheque amount but however got issued a reply on 25.10.2012 making frivolous and baseless allegations against the complainant. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 failed to give any reply. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the second respondent.

5. The first ground raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the matter basing on the affidavit of the complainant instead of recording the sworn statement of the complainant as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

6. The said issue raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the apex Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014(1) ALD (Crl.) 649 (SC) = 2013(1) DT (SC) 428, wherein the apex Court has categorically held that it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant or his witness upon oath for taking the decision as to whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

7. In Mandvi Co-operative Bank Limited v. M/s. V. Nimesh B. Thakore, AIR 2010 SC 1402,