THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12646 OF 2024 Between:

Parsi Veena ………Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another.

…….Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced on : 06-02-2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes Of the Judgment?

___________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12646 OF 2024 % 06-02-2026 # Parsi Veena ……… Petitioner Versus $ State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ……. Respondents GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

!Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ^Counsel for the respondents : Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1, and Mr. R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

? Cases referred

1. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 661]

2. Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna [AIR 2025 SC 330]

3.. Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. M/s. Fine Tubes [(2007) 5 SCC

103]

4. M/s. Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar [(1998) 5

SCC 567]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12646 OF 2024 DATE: 06.02.2026 Between :

Parsi Veena. … Petitioner AND State of Telangana., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

Heard Mr. T.V. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1, and Mr. R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”) against the petitioner, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Questioning the legality and sustainability of the said proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the averments in the complaint, the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner in the name of “Sri Lalitha Traders,” which is a proprietary concern. However, the proprietary concern itself was not arrayed as an accused. It is argued that, despite this alleged fundamental defect, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioner. According to the petitioner, prosecution without impleading the proprietary concern vitiates the entire proceedings.

4.2. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 661] and Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna [AIR 2025 SC 330], to contend that where an offence is committed by a legal entity acting through human agency, the criminal liability is primarily that of the entity, and prosecution of the signatory alone, without arraigning the principal offender, is impermissible. It is further contended that the principles underlying Section 141 of the N.I. Act ought to be extended to proprietary concerns as well. On these grounds, quashment of the proceedings is sought.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the contention of the petitioner is legally untenable. It is argued that Section 141 of the N.I. Act applies only to companies and firms, which are juristic