O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 in C.C.No.2386 of 2018, on the file of the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-4 and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that an agreement was entered between M/s.Gowra Petrochem Pvt Ltd/complainant company/first party and M/s.Ashok Polymers Limited/accused No.1 company/second party, to which A2 to A4 are the Managing Directors/third party/guarantors. Petitioner No.3/authorized signatory of A1 company issued a cheque bearing No.002379 dated

25.07.2017 for an amount of Rs.66,121,297.50 p.s. drawn on ICICI Bank under Ex.P5 in favour of the complainant company. On presentation, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “exceed arrangements”. A legal notice was issued to that effect and after expiry of the statutory period, C.C.No.2386 of 2018, on the file of the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act against A1 to A4. Challenging the same, the petitioners/A2 and A4 filed the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners by furnishing a copy of death certificate of Petitioner No.1, who was arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.2386 of 2018 on the file of learned trial Court would submit that the petitioner No.1/A-2 expired on 08.03.2020 and hence, he seeks to close the petition against petitioner No.1/A-2 as abated. He would further submit that petitioner No.2/A-4 is only formal Director of the accused No.1 Company and she has no direct connection with the business affairs of A1 Company and furthermore she is not a signatory to the subject cheque. Hence, he seeks to quash the proceedings against the petitioner No.2/A-4 relying upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Susela Padmavathy Amma vs M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited1.

5. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of unofficial respondent/complainant company.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the proceedings as against the petitioner No.1/A-2 stand abated. So far as the petitioner No.2/A-4 is concerned, as seen from the copy of the agreement provided by the learned counsel, petitioner No.2/A-4 is also signatory to the agreement executed between the complainant company and company to which she is one of the Directors.

Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusing the material available on record, as the matter is pending for quite a long time, this Court is of the opinion

2024 (2) ALT (Crl.) 156 (SC)

that the matter requires adjudication at length. The trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and upon examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, is directed to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Petition at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner/A4 before the trial Court, is dispensed with for each and every adjournment unless specifically required by the trial Court.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 23.07.2024.

krl