1) The petitioners in Crl.P.No.11336 of 2014 are A-3 to A-5 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.13561 of 2014 are A-1 and A-2 of C.C. No.262 of 2014 on the file of II Special Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, outcome of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent-complainant for dishonour of the cheque bearing No.369876, dated 19.02.2014 for Rs.50,00,000/-. It is from the cause of action and after statutory notice, dated 24.02.2014 served on the accused persons 1 to 5 covered by acknowledgments dated 25.02.2014 and after the statutory waiting for non-payment and no reply, the complaint is filed.

2) The present quash petitions filed – (a) so far as by the petitioners A-3 to A-5 are that they are mere directors and they are no way responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company which is a statutory requirement under Section 141 of the N.I.Act with specific allegations in the complaint for taking cognizance and the private complaint case without even such averments and without proper application of mind on the said requirement taken cognizance for the offence by the learned Magistrate from a stray sentence at para No.7 of the Complaint ‘that all the accused persons are looking after the business affairs of the Company and being responsible for the business affairs of the Company, having committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act- - - - - for the cheque dishonoured - - - - - for funds insufficient - - - hence they are liable to be punished for the said offence’, which is not sufficient in the absence of clearly making a mention in the complaint as an averment as to the specific and categorical role played by any of the directors to make them liable particularly for A-3 to A-5 to make them vicariously liable, that without which the criminal liability cannot be fastened so casually, that of A-4 and A-5 are even ladies and homemakers unnecessarily lugged in to exert undue pressure to extract money irrespective of merits of the case even they are not remotely connected to the entering of alleged sale and purchase agreement between A-1 company and the defacto-complainant and the calendar case cognizance results miscarriage of justice, for the reason even the complaint averments taken on face value attract no any offence.

(b) In so far as A-1 Company and A-2 its Managing Director concerned, it is averred that A-1 and A-2 are also falsely and erroneously implicated even they are innocent, to extract money by exercise of threat, the material filed with complaint shows the product supplied by the complainant were returned as per Clause II of sale-cum-purchase agreement dated 07.10.2013 and as such there is no legally enforceable debt in subsistence, that the Court below did not apply its mind in this regard in taking cognizance and issuing summons which is nothing but abuse of process, that A-1 Company filed arbitration O.P. No.1784 of 2014 before 24th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the complainant and also filed application under Section 9 of the Act to direct the complainant herein to take back the stock from Kranthi Road Transport Private Limited and that once the stock is returned that is not even receiving by its refusal by the complainant, there is no legally enforceable debt or other liability and continuation of proceedings are nothing but gross abuse of process and hence to quash. It is the submission of the accused/quash petitioners supra by reiteration of the above contentions.

3) Whereas it is the submission by the complainant that the complaint itself when mentions the averment of the accused persons 3 to 5 are also liable for day to day business of the A-1 entity along with A-2 Managing Director, being the directors from that specific allegations the complaint is sustainable and cognizance of the offence since rightly taken by the Court for the cheques issued for legally enforceable debt dishonoured, that th