APHC010489912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7896/2024 Between: Ssk Housing And Promoters Ltd The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. LAKSHMINARAYANA V Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. TATA MALLIKARJUNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7896/2024 Ssk Housing And Promoters Ltd ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: LAKSHMINARAYANA V Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): TATA MALLIKARJUNA RAO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HN, J Crl.P.No.7896_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.7896_2024 The Court made the following Order: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the continuation of C.C.No.84 of 2023, on the file of I Special Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in C.C.No.84 of 2023. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, NI Act), is filed against the petitioner, representing by its Managing Director. It is also submitted that the Managing Director, in his individual capacity, is said to have borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the company is not the borrower. However, the Managing Director appears to have issued a cheque in the name of company, drawn from the company’s account, to the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the cheque would not have been issued for settling the personal liability of the Managing Director. 3. The learned counsel further submits that, as per Section 138 of the NI Act, the cheque ought to have been issued for the discharge of a subsisting liability. The company has no liability to be discharged to the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the matter is now posted for judgment in the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Hiten Sagar and others vs. IMC limited and others, where the Bombay High Court dealt with the issue of whether a cheque, not drawn for the 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.7896_2024 discharge of the liability of the drawer, constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In that case, the Bombay High court held that no offence is made out under Section 138 of the NI Act. Considering the same, the Criminal Petition was allowed. 4. Considering the submissions and after going through the record, the petitioner received a legal notice dated 15.07.2021, which was served on the petitioner on 19.07.2021. The evidence in the matter has been completed before the trial Court, and now the matter is posted for judgment. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere, as the question of liability of the petitioner will have to be dealt with by the trial Court in trial. 5. With these observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed off. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 20.03.2025 NKA 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.7896_2024 460 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Petition No.7896 of 2024 Date: 20.03.2025 NKA