ORDER :

K. Sujana, J.

Since the issue involved in all these criminal petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to set aside the order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.30, 33, 28 and 32 of 2023 in C.C.Nos.204885, 204894, 205248 and 204895 of 2018, respectively, by the learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner/complainant in all the cases had filed petitions, respectively, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to include Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal, Executive Director of the accused company, as accused No.3 in the original complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that though notices were issued to both the Managing Director and Executive Director before filing the complaint, they were not made parties in their personal capacities, and that since the Executive Director had signed the cheque on behalf of the company, he was a necessary party for adjudication.

4. The respondents/accused opposed the petition contending that Section 319 Cr.P.C. was inapplicable to a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act, that the complaint lacked the mandatory averments under Section 141 N.I. Act, that the statutory time limits under Sections 138 and 142 N.I. Act had already expired, and that the petition was filed with mala fide intent to abuse process.

5. The trial Court, after considering the rival submissions and relying on various Supreme Court decisions, vide order dated 19.11.2024, dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioner was required to plead all mandatory ingredients of Sections 138 and 141 N.I. Act in the original complaint, including specific averments regarding vicarious liability, and that the proposed accused could not be added at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 when such requirements were not complied with and that the complaint, filed in the year 2018, did not satisfy these statutory requirements, and the present petition filed in the year 2023 was devoid of merit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petitions.

6. Heard Sri Vishal Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the order of the Magistrate was improper, perverse in law, and untenable and that the trial Court had not properly examined the records, including the initial notice and documents filed with the complaint, and had therefore erred in passing the impugned order. He further submitted that under Section 141 of the N.I. Act, when an offence under Section 138 was committed by a company, the persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business should also be impleaded as accused along with the company.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order was erroneous, mechanical, and based on assumptions, and was contrary to settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. He argued that there was no doubt about the involvement of the proposed party, as he was the person who had signed the cheque, thereby having a direct nexus with the offence, which could not be ignored. He further contended that the corpus delicti against the proposed accused had alre