IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV. OHt 4 <(. MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE cm /#«. I I '), PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6400 OF 2021 Between: Chillara Venkatesh, S/o. late Chillara Krishna Murthy, 49y, Occ: Promoter Tech. Seleh Products and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., R/o Suchitra, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. Padarthi Ramakrishna, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Aged 44 years, R/o. Main Road, Amaravathi Village and Mandal, Guntur District. AP. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 147 of 2019 on the file of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. LA. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No.147 of 2019 on the file of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli including the appearance of the petitioner. This Petition conning on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PETA GNANA TEJA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri S. GANESH BABU Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: APHC010442442021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6400/2021 Between: Chillara Venkatesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Padarthi Ramakrishna and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.PETA GNANATEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent No.1 is the de- facto complainant. The respondent No.1 had lodged a private complaint in the month of April, 2019 alleging that the petitioner/accused and the de-facto complainant are friends and upon the words of the petitioner, the de-facto complainant invested an amount of Rs.44,50,000/- in the petitioner’s company. Thereafter, due to result of some series of events and misunderstanding between the parties, the de-facto complainant decided to withdraw the amount he invested in the petitioner’s company. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner had returned an amount of Rs.24,50,000/-, to the de- facto complainant and further issued a cheque bearing No.059139, dated 27.01.2018, drawn at Axis Bank, Banjara Hiss, Hyderabad in favour of the de- facto complainant for withdrawal of the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. When the de-facto complainant presented the said cheque through his Banker i.e.. Syndicate Bank, Amaravathi on 22.02.2019, the said cheque was dishonored and returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” and accordingly a return memo to that effect was also received by the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant had issued a registered legal notice dated 14.03.2019 to the petitioner calling him to pay the due amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice. Pursuant to which, the petitioner issued a reply notice date 18.03.2019. Alleging the same, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint vide C.C.No.147 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Satenapalli was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the same is being challenged in the present Criminal Petition. 4. During the course of arguments, learned coi^sel for the petitioner while 3. reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that after part-payment of Rs.24,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.059139 for on arnount of Rs.20,00,000/- condition that the cheque will be returned un-presented on payment of the said due amount by the petitioner and to that effect the on a petitioner after the payment of Rs.24,50,000/- on 17.07.2018, had also paid Rs.5,00,000/- 24.12.2018, Rs,3,00,000/- on 16.12.2019 to the de-facto complainant and the same on were also received by him. Therefore, the petitioner had paid a total amount of Rs.32,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant. It is further represented that as per the terms and conditions of the written agreement dated 28.03.2018, if the de-facto complainant opts to back out or is unable to pay the agreed part of the investment amount, then the borrower/petitioner is liable to return back only 75% of the invested amount of Rs.44,50,000/- total amounts to Rs.33,37,500/- and as the petitioner had paid Rs.32,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant, the proceedings under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act, 1881, against the petitioner which in an amount of are mere abuse of law. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations as against the petitioners in the complaint. He submits that the sheet may be looked into by the Court to to the culpability of the petitioners. As such, this petition is liable to be dismissed. provisions of law indicated in the charge come to a just conclusion with regard 6. When the petition came up for admission on 26.11.2021, this court has passed the following order: "...The presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.147/2019 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, is dispensed with. ” Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 01.05.2024, this Court was pleased to extend the Interim Order dated 26.11.2021, until further orders. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for considerationis as follows: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2019, on the fiie of the ii Additionai Junior Civii Judge, Sattenapaiii, are iiable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 ofCr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 7. 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^", the Apex Court laid down the following principles: “(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the endsj)fjustice; 9. 'AIR 1960 SC 866 (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (Hi) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. ” Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumai^ ” In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lat^” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint; 10. 11. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335 (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the ailegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maiiciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be understood that initially, the defacto complainant has invested an amount of Rs.44,50,000/- in the company of the petitioner herein, but subsequently, the defacto complainant chose to withdraw the money invested by him in the company of the petitioner herein. As a part of the repayment to the defacto complainant, he received an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- from the petitioner 12. herein and for the remaining amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque bearing No.059139, dated 27.11.2018 drawn on Axis Bank at road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad which, upon presentation was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant has submitted a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner herein on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. Under similar circumstances, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 14.11.2018 in Cri.P.Nos.5737 of 2014 and batch duly referring to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd*., held as under; 13. “Undisputedly, the cheques in question were drawn from the account of the Happy Estate Private Limited and the drawer is Entity-Happy Estates Private Limited represented by its Managing Director. Those were not individual cheques issued by the signatory but by the Company represented by him. Undisputedly, the Company was not arrayed as accused. It is the drawer if at all to be made liable along with the Managing Director also vicariously. Without adding the Company as a party, the question of adding Managing Director as a party does not arise as per the settled law from the 3JB expression of the Apex Court scanning the law in Aneeta Had v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd.^ particularly from para-59. Thus without impleadment of the Entity, the question of vicarious liability of individual arrayed as accused does not arise. Thereby the cognizance taken by the respective learned Magistrates supra for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in respective cases is unsustainable and liable to be set aside." "2012 5 800 661 ^2012 5 800 661 As seen from the above order, it is clear that without impleading the company as a party, the question of vicarious liability of individual arrayed as accused does not arise. 14. In the instant case, the cheque in question was drawn from the account of the Tech Selah Products and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and the drawer is Tech Selah Products and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Promoter who is the petitioner herein. Further, it is not a cheque issued by an individual but it is issued by the Company represented by him. When the cheque was issued by the company, undisputedly, the Company has to be arrayed as accused, which is deficient in the case on hand. Without adding the Company as a party, the question of adding Promoter as a party does not arise. Thus, without impleadment of the Entity, the question of vicarious liability of individual arrayed as accused does not arise. Thereby the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 15. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, as the company on behalf of which the cheques are issued is not arrayed as party. 16. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.147 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, are hereby quashed. 17. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. One CC to Sri Peta Gnana Teja, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. Pmg HIGHCOURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6400 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRLP