IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Divakar Atluri and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 1277 Of 2024
Decided On : 03-01-2025
ORDER :
(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.)
1. Summoning order of a learned Magistrate is under challenge in this criminal revision case.
2. M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) filed a complaint under section 200 CrPC alleging offence under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act, 1881). A1 to A6 are arraigned in the complaint. On 21.06.2023, after verifying the complaint and sworn statements of the complainant, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:
3. Learned Magistrate registered the case as C.C.No.375 of 2023. The said case is pending before learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. A2, A3 and A5 therein filed the present criminal revision case impugning the above referred order dated 21.06.2023.
4. Sri D.S.Siva Darshan, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/ Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation submitted arguments. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited legal authorities.
5. M/s. Karvy Realty (India) Limited is an incorporated company. M/s. Karvy Data Management Services Limited is a part of the said group of companies. M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation owns a building. A part of the building was leased out to M/s. Karvy Reality (India) Limited. Over a period, the lease holder fell in arrears in paying the rents and various other charges for power and common maintenance charges etc. It is in that regard, the tenant company issued three cheques towards repayment of the overdues. On their presentation for collection, they were returned unpaid by bankers with an endorsement that “payment stopped by drawer”. After serving notices on A1 to A6 and since there was no repayment of cheque amounts, M/s. Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation had filed the complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and ordered summons to A1 to A6.
6. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsels, the cause title in the said criminal case is required to be seen and the same is extracted below:
2. M/s.Karvy Data Management Services Ltd, Director, Divakar Atluri, Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.
3. M/s.Karvy Data Management Services Ltd, Director: Vijay Kumar Tarimela, Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.
4. Sri Mahesh Vijaya Gopal, Managing Director M/s.Karvy Data Management Services Ltd, Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.
5. M/s.Karvy Data Management Services Ltd, Director: Comandur Parthasarathy, Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.
6. G.Sridhar, Vice President, M/s.Karvy Data Management Services Ltd, Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No. 1. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.”
7. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds etc., is an offence under section 138 NI Act, 1881. If a person committing an offence under section 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be de
Ashok Shewakramani V. State of Andhra Pradesh
Directors of a company cannot be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act without specific allegations of their individual responsibility for the company's conduct.
A signatory of a cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution does not bar the revisional court from correcting such orders.
The company must be summoned as an accused in Section 138 N.I. Act cases for proceedings against its Directors to be valid.
Summoning order not interlocutory, revision maintainable even by third party invoking suo motu power; barred if beyond 90-day limitation from issuance, challenge to consequential warrants ineffective....
For maintaining a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arraigning of the company as an accused is imperative. The person in charge of the company cannot be held liable if ....
Directors can only be held liable under the N.I. Act if the complaint explicitly states their role in the company's affairs at the time of the offence.
A director's personal endorsement of a cheque can implicate a company in liability under the NI Act, reinforcing the scrutiny necessary in summoning orders.
Point of Law : On face of the record, participation of applicants is not found in the day to day functioning of Company, hence, on basis of the version that defence would be seen at the time of evide....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with legal provisions, including the conduct of an inquiry as required under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., and the applicability of Secti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.