1. Heard counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

2. The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1375 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act).

3. The brief facts of the case are that originally the 2nd respondent herein filed the above mentioned case i.e., C.C.No.1375 of 2010 against the petitioners and two others. The case of the 2nd respondent is that petitioner No.1 is a private limited company represented by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and two others and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 approached his father and requested him to give hand loan for the purpose of developing the lands in Magadha Venture situated at Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District. Believing the version of the petitioners, his father paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in cash as hand loan and in view thereof the petitioners executed a promissory note, dated 04.10.2007. In the said promissory note, Sri M. Chandra Shekar and Sri B. Venu Gopal Reddy acted as witnesses, since amount was paid in their presence. It is also stated that the petitioners agreed to pay the above said amount with interest @24% per annum within a period of two years thereof. However, after receiving the amount, the petitioners have changed their colour and started avoiding payment of the said amount. It is also specifically stated that the said amount was obtained by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and two others for the purpose of investing in the real estate business of petitioner No.1 company. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company, petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner Nos.3, 4 and two others are the Directors of petitioner No.1 company. In fact, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and two other Directors are equally taking part in the business of the company and also looking after the financial aspects, such as, negotiating with the customers, issuing of cheques etc., and therefore all are equally responsible for the day to day affairs of the 1st petitioner company. The 1st petitioner company represented by accused Nos.3 and 4, with the consent of accused Nos.2, 5 and 6, issued a cheque bearing No.332164, dated 16.09.2010, for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank, Banjara Hills, in favour of the father of the 2nd respondent towards discharge of the debt. When the father of the 2nd respondent deposited the above mentioned cheque for collection through his banker i.e., Bank of Baroda, Abids branch, Hyderabad, the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement funds insufficient and the same was intimated to him on 17.09.2010. All the accused persons have jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque, but with a view to defeat the payment, all the accused have committed default in payment of legally enforceable debt to the father of the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of the said dishonour of the cheque, the father of the 2nd respondent got issued statutory notice, dated 07.10.2010, through his counsel calling upon all the accused, including the petitioners herein, to pay the amount covered under the above said cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. All the accused, including the petitioners herein, have received the notice on 11.10.2010 under the postal acknowledgement, dated 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010 respectively, but have not chosen to give any reply and no amount is paid. However, after issuance of the legal notice, unfortunately the father of the 2nd respondent died on 13.10.2010. That apart, he also filed a suit for recovery of the amount covered under the subject cheque before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide O.S(SR).No.34507 of 2010. The original cheque as well as the cheque returned memo were filed before the civil Court and the same w