ORDER :

Heard Mr. C. Raghu, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Lingampally Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

2. Criminal Petition No.628 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.2643 of 2021 pending on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, while Criminal Petition No.629 of 2022 is filed by the very same petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.2644 of 2021 pending on the file of the very same Court.

3. Respondent No.2 herein is the complainant filed the aforesaid both the Calendar Cases under Section - 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’) against the petitioners herein. In C.C. No.2643 of 2021, the cheque in dispute is bearing No.236724, dated 20.09.2021 for Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) issued by petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 Company represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Jairam Singh in the first week of May, 2021, and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “payment stopped by drawer” on 22.09.2021. Whereas the cheques in dispute in C.C. No.2644 of 2021 are bearing Nos.292443 and 292442, both dated 03.09.2021 and 03.09.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/-, respectively issued by petitioner No.1 Company. Initially, when the said two cheques were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ vide cheque return memos dated 04.09.2021. Again, when the complainant represented the said cheques, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘drawers signature differs’ on 15.09.2021.

4. In view of the above, as the issues involved and the parties except cheque numbers and C.C. numbers are common in both the Criminal Petitions and, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by way of this common order.

5. The only ground on which the proceedings in the aforesaid C.Cs sought to be quashed is that the cheques, dated 20.09.2021 and 03.09.2021 respectively in dispute were issued by petitioner No.1, a Company, represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Jayaram Singh. In fact, the cheques were issued in the month of May, 2021 and the said Authorized Signatory died on 09.06.2021 i.e., even before the date of cheques and, therefore, the cheques in dispute became void cheques. Thus, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.Cs. for the offence under Section - 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioners herein are not maintainable.

6. In the complaints filed under Section - 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence under Section - 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant in both the complaints specifically contended that petitioner No.1 -accused No.1 Company represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Jairam Singh had issued the cheques in dispute in his favour in the first week of May, 2021 towards part payment assuring that the cheques would be honoured on its presentation and requested some time to pay the balance outstanding amount. In the statutory notices, both dated 01.10.2021, the said facts were also mentioned by the complainant.

7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the cheques in dispute belong to petitioner No.1 Company i.e., M/s. Jairam Foundry Private Limited signed by late Jairam Singh. The said cheques were issued in the month of May, 2021. The cheque in relation to C.C. No.2643 of 2021 is dated 20.09.2021, while the cheques consists of three (03) in number in relation to C.C. No.2644 of 2021 are dated 05.06.2021 and 03.09.2021 respectively. The said Jairam Singh died on 09.06.2021 i.e., after issuance of the cheques and before presentation of the same.

8. As per the complaint in C.C. No.2643 of 2021, when the said cheque was deposited with respondent No.2 - complainant’s banker for realization, the same was returned on 22.09.2021 with an endorsem