IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Mrs. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Rayani Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondent
Crl. P No.750 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the cheque issuance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against the petitioner's claims (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. determination on quashing based on presented evidence. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's analysis on vicarious liability and evidence standards (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the quashment petition (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Civil Judge), Guntur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the Act').
2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows :
(b) To meet the business necessities, accused No.1, represented by accused No.2 opened a Khata on 07.09.2019 and purchased cotton seed hulls from the complainant Company-Sri Raja Rajeswari Cotton Traders, which deals with the business in sale and supply of cotton seed hulls, cotton lint and maize. Subsequently accused No.1 also purchased cotton lint and maize from the complainant on credit and all the said transactions were duly entered in the said Khata.
(c) On repeated requests, on 21.11.2019, accused made part payment of Rs.25,300/- by way of NEFT through the account of accused No.1 with Syndicate Bank, Brundavan Gardens Branch, Guntur and thereafter, no payment has been done by the accused.
(d) By 30.12.2019 the amount due to the complainant by the accused was Rs.82,69,225.68 ps. Thereafter several demands, accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1-Firm had issued three Cheques Bearing Nos.943575, 943576 and 943577 for Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs respectively drawn in favour of the complainant on Syndicate Bank, Brundavan Gardens Branch, Guntur, towards part payment of the outstanding amount and requested the complainant not to present the said cheques till 15.02.2020 stating that the funds will be arranged in the account of A1-Firm by accused Nos.2 and 3.
(e) Thereafter on 10.02.2020, accused No.2 again requested the complainant not to present the said cheques assuring that the funds will be arranged by the end of February, 2020, but the accused failed to keep up their promise. Again on 02.03.2020 accused No.1 issued another Cheque Bearing No.943578 for Rs.33 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment and requested to present all the four cheques after 10.03.2020. However, after issuance of the cheque dated 02.03.2020, accused No.2 got issued a legal notice dated 05.03.2020 to the complainant with all false and baseless allegations for which, the complainant got issued a suitable reply on 12.03.2020 intimating about the presentation of the said cheques before the Bank. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said four cheques with his banker i.e., ICICI Bank, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur on 16.03.2020 three cheques were returned due to "Insufficient Funds" and the fourth cheque was returned for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer" under Memos dated 18.03.2020. Hence, the complainant lodged a private complaint against all the accused which was numbered as CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur.
Grounds Sought for Quashment :
3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the said case, petitioner/accused No.3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds :
Vicarious liability applies to partners in a firm under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, making them accountable for cheques issued by the firm, irrespective of individual management in....
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to managing partners, making them liable for dishonoured cheques issued by the firm.
Vicarious liability under the N.I. Act requires the company to be a party; absence of the company invalidates proceedings against the individual.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments to establish vicarious liability of partners in a partnership firm under Section 138 of the NI Act and the n....
Directors can be held vicariously liable for offenses committed during their tenure, even if they resign before legal proceedings commence.
The court emphasized that the specific allegations and knowledge of the accused are crucial in determining liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable if the Partnership Firm, which issued the cheques, is not made an accused.
Prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not maintainable against signatories of a cheque unless the firm, as the drawer, is also arraigned as an accused.
The court quashed proceedings against a former director for cheque dishonor, ruling that allegations did not establish an offense post-resignation, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal proc....
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.