##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12749 OF 2023

DATE: 07-04-2026

Between:

B. Shiv Babu alias @ Bandla Siva Babu … Petitioner

And M/s. Poshak Feeds Pvt. Ltd. and another

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking

to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.241 of 2016 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for

short, ‘the N.I. Act’) and Section 420 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Sai Sumeed Yasaswi Kardapalli, learned counsel representing Sri K. Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

ETD,J

2 Crl.P.No.12749 of 2023

3. The case of the complainant before the trial Court is that he has supplied poultry feed to the accused as per the request and requirements under the statement of account; that the accounting year of the complainant is 1^st April to 31^st March; and that every year, by the end of 31^st March, the balance will be carried forward to next year i.e., 1^st April. The statements of account from 01.04.2012 to 19.11.2015 shows that the feed was received by the accused as per his orders from time to time and the balance as on 08.10.2015 is Rs.24,00,000/-, to be paid to the complainant. On regular follow up by the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque, dated 10.08.2015, for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank. But, on presentation of the same, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’. On receiving the cheque return memo, a legal notice was issued by the complainant on 07.10.2015, which was received by the accused on 27.10.2015. In spite of the same, the accused failed to comply with the payment and hence, the present

complaint is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings before the trial Court are not at all maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Aneeta Hada v.

ETD,J

3 Crl.P.No.12749 of 2023

Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 and that a Director of the Company cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without making the Company as an accused. He further submitted that the statutory demand notice issued by the complainant is invalid and defective, as it is not issued to the drawer of the cheque or the Company, but is issued to the petitioner in his individual capacity, which is not tenable in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is neither signatory to the cheque nor the Company is made a party and hence, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. He, therefore, prayed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the Company has received the goods supplied by the complainant and has not paid for the same and thus, there exists a legally enforceable debt and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner has issued the cheque and thus, the petitioner is liable to make the payment. He further submitted that the petitioner is not made as a party in his individual capacity, but he is arrayed as the Managing Director of

ETD,J

4 Crl.P.No.12749 of 2023

Sri Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited and hence, he is liable and the proceedings are still maintainable against him. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Aneeta Hada’s case (supra), but his contention is that since the petitioner is arrayed as the Managing Director of Sri Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited, there is no need to array the Company as the accused and that the petitioner can be held vicariously liable on behalf of the Compan