ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner/complainant, challenging the order, dated 17.04.2017, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2016 of 2016 in C.C.No.88 of 2016 by the IV Special Magistrate at Hyderabad, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/ accused Nos.5 to 7 under Section 251 read with 204 of Cr.P.C. to recall the notices and drop the proceedings against them in the subject C.C.No.88 of 2016, was allowed.

2. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to

3/accused Nos.5 to 7 and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:

“The petitioner herein/complainant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in manufacture and sale of Air Conditioners and its accessories. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are accused Nos. 5 to 7 in the subject C.C.No.88 of 2016, who are Directors of M/s.Servomax India Limited (arrayed as A1 in the subject C.C.No.88 of 2016.). On 11.01.2013, the A1 Company, being managed by accused Nos.2 to 7, expressed its willingness to act as trade partner/distributor in south India for marketing the petitioner company’s products and an agreement dated 21.01.2013, was entered into between them. Pursuant to the said agreement, the A1 Company placed various purchased orders for supply of different air conditioners and, accordingly, the petitioner company supplied 1039 air conditioners the sent an email, dated 22.07.2013, enclosing the balance statement of Rs.1,44,85,846/-, whereupon, the A1 company confirmed the outstanding through email, dated 25.07.2013. The accused Nos. 2 to 7 issued three cheques for Rs.1,17,71,699/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Jubilee hills Branch in favour of the petitioner company. Those cheques were dishonored on presentation, due to insufficient funds. Legal notices were issued to all the accused. The accused failed to comply the demand in the legal notice. Subsequently, the petitioner company filed the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’) against the accused. Summonses were issued to the accused. At that stage, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.5 to 7 filed the subject Crl.M.P.No.2016 of 2016 under Section 251 read with 204 of Cr.P.C. to recall the notices and drop the proceedings against them. The said application was allowed by the court below vide impugned order, dated 17.04.2017. Challenging the said order, the petitioner Company preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the Court below is contrary to law. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the summons issued to the accused or for their discharge, when the case is at the stage of trial. Recalling the summons issued by the Court and discharge of the respondents Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.5 to 7 would amount to review of the order taking cognizance for the offence committed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.5 to 7, which is impermissible under law. There are bundle of allegations against the respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.5 to 7 to proceed against them under Section 141(1) of NI Act for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3/accused Nos. 5 to 7 are working as Directors and are responsible for the day to day affairs of A1 company. Even otherwise, the liability or responsibility of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/accused Nos. 5 to 7 with regard to dishonor of cheques can only be adjudicated at the trial of the case and not at the stage of their examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Adalat Prasad Vs Roop Lal Jindal1, the learned counsel for the

1 (2004)7 SCC 338

petitioner/complainant submit that the only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an or