ORDER:

K.SURENDER, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, and 2, to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.834 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bongir.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. It is informed that accused No.1 has died. Accordingly, this petition is heard only against accused No.2/petitioner No.2.

4. The crime was registered in the year 2005. In the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, it is alleged that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land admeasuring Acs.20-35 guntas in Survey Nos.492 and 496 of Bibinagar Village, Yadadri Bhavanagiri District. Accused Nos.1 and 2 attempted to sell a part of the land by creating a GPA through one of their employees, i.e., accused No.3. Accused No.3 is not before this Court.

5. While the crime was pending, Criminal Petition No.2504 of 2005 was filed questioning the investigation, and the same was dismissed. Again, after filing the chargesheet, the petitioners preferred Criminal Petition No.13797 of 2011, and the same was disposed of, as the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press for the main prayer and confined his argument only to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court. In the Court below, a discharge application was filed by the petitioners herein, and the same was dismissed. The prosecution against the petitioners is for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 175, 177, 201, 204, and 420 read with 511, 34, and 109 of I.P.C.

6. Questioning the said discharge application, Criminal Revision Case No.1232 of 2014 was filed before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 16.07.2014, partly allowed the petition, holding that insofar as the additional charges framed for the offences punishable under Sections 175 and 177 of IPC are concerned, the same could not be sustained and set aside the order to that extent, while maintaining the prosecution under other provisions of IPC.

7. The present criminal petition is filed after the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case No.1232 of 2014. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that several criminal petitions can be maintained, though the earlier petitions were dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the point not urged earlier is that the company was not made an accused, and in such a case, the question of prosecuting the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 does not arise.

9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Sethi and another v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, [(2020) 3 SCC 240], wherein several allegations were made against the company, and for the reason that the company was not made an accused, and it was held that the prosecution cannot be initiated against the Managing Directors/Directors. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

“8.2. It is also required to be noted that the main allegations can be said to be against the company. The company has not been made a party. The allegations are restricted to the Managing Director and the Director of the company respectively. There are no specific allegations against the Managing Director or even the Director. There are no allegations to constitute the vicarious liability. In the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668, it is observed and held by this Court that the penal code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company when the accused is the company. It is further observed and held that the vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. It is further observed that statute indisputably must