HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1684 of 2024

ORDER

Heard Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.C (NI) No.790 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I. Act”).

3. The petitioners herein filed present criminal petition contending that he has submitted his resignation for the post of Directorship of petitioner-accused No.1 Company on 22.05.2019. Accused No.1 Company had also submitted statutory Form DIR-12 with the Registrar of Companies acknowledging resignation of the petitioner. In proof of the same, he has filed copy of Form DIR-12. Therefore, as on the date of issuance of subject cheque bearing No.888664, dated 31.03.2021, petitioner No.2 herein is not a director of petitioner No.1-accused No.1 Company. Respondent No.2 knowing the same, filed the aforesaid complaint against him. Having considered the fact that the petitioner herein is no more the Director of accused No.1 company, vide order dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.P. No.5655 of 2022, the High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.12712 of 2022 registered for the similar offence. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in S.T.C (NI) No.790 of 2022 against the petitioners is an abuse process of law and, thus, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the said aspects are triable issues. The petitioner has to face trial, prove the same and it is for the trial Court to consider the said aspects. As far as petitioner No.1 - Accused No.1 is concerned, it is a company and proceedings cannot be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, (2012) 1 SCC 520 and Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh, MANU/SCOR/159020/2023 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Perusal of record would reveal that petitioner No.2 has filed a Criminal Petition No.5655 of 2022 under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C before the High Court of Karnataka to quash the entire proceedings against him in C.C.No.12712 of 2022 (PCR.No.4269 of 2022) for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of N.I. Act. Petitioner No.2 herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the said case. It is also contended that petitioner No.2 herein, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.

No.12712 of 2022 and Managing Director of accused No.1 Company ceased to be the Director of the Company on 22.05.2019, which is evident from Form DIR - 12 issued by the Registrar of Companies and the subject cheque in the said case was issued on 15.07.2021. On consideration of the said facts, Criminal Petition No.5655 of 2022 was allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.12712 of 2022 were quashed against petitioner No.2 herein by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

7. In Anita Malhotra (1 supra), the appellant therein had resigned from the post of Directorship of the company w.e.f. 31.08.1998, whereas cheques were issued on 01.06.2004. She has filed certified copy of annual return of the company for the succeeding year of her resignation as obtained from Registrar of Companies and uncertified copy of Form-32 along with acknowledgment. On consideration of the same, the Apex Court held that annual return is a public document in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section - 74 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Accordingly, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused therein.

8. Even in Adhiraj Singh (2 supra), the Apex Court reiterated the said principle and quashed