Specific averments are necessary to establish the liability of a Director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere designation is insufficient.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him by setting aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed in CRL.M.P.No.3717 of 2023 in S.T.C.NI.No.346 of 2021 on the file of the learned X Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the NI Act’).

2. Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

3(a). A complaint was filed under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), alleging the commission of offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act by the accused persons. The complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2 before the learned trial Court in respect of the alleged offences committed on 19.11.2020 and 08.01.2021. The gist of the private complaint is that the complainant and the accused had maintained acquaintance and association for more than 20 years. Owing to the said acquaintance, the complainant advanced certain amounts to members of the Lingamaneni family, namely L. Ramesh (the petitioner–accused No.2), LVS Rajasekhar, and their companies.

3(b). It is further alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 4 approached the complainant seeking funds for investment in real estate ventures and, in turn, promised to deliver certain properties to the complainant for the amounts received, with a further assurance that, in the event of their failure to deliver such properties, the amount would be repaid with interest at 18% per annum. A cheque bearing No.040421, dated 03.09.2013 for an amount of Rs.2.00 crores, drawn on Axis Bank, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, in favour of M/s Viswaroopi Energy Private Limited i.e. accused No.1, was issued and subsequently encashed through HDFC Bank, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. The complainant asserts that after waiting for nearly three years, she repeatedly approached the accused seeking repayment of the amount. Thereafter, the accused Nos.2 to 4 executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24.06.2016, signed by the petitioner–accused No.2. Under the said MOU, all creditors of the accused and their companies were collectively described as “Party A,” and the debtors, including individuals and their companies, were described as “Party B.” The complainant was reflected as the fifth member of Party A, while the accused No.4 was shown as the first member of Party B, and the company was shown as the third member. The consolidated liability of Party B towards Party A was recorded as Rs.300.00 crores, out of which the complainant’s entitlement was Rs.2.00 crores. However, the terms of the MOU were not honoured.

3(c). It is further alleged that upon repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused Nos.2 to 4 expressed willingness to effect partial repayment, and the accused No.4 acting in the capacity of Director of the Company, issued a cheque for Rs.2.00 crores in April 2019 towards part discharge of the debt. The accused requested the complainant to await further instructions regarding the date of presentation of the cheque, assuring that she would be informed once funds were arranged. The complainant waited for approximately one and a half years and again sought confirmation for presentation of the cheque. It is stated that by the end of October 2020, the accused assured that he would intimate the complainant regarding the presentation of the cheque and, in the event of failing to do so, she could present the cheque at any time during November 2020.

3(d). It is further alleged that as the complainant was unable to establish