RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law and facts are involved and also as the parties are same all these cases can be disposed of together.

(2.) The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') on various complaints in CC No.344/200. CC No.105/97, CC No.1059/98, CC No.1058/ 98, CC No.749/97, CC No.354/97, CC No.977/97 respectively on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the grounds mentioned, inter alia, in the petitions are two fold. Firstly that there has been no specific allegation against the petitioners 2 and 3, who are obviously not signatories of the cheques issued in favour of the complainant, that, at the time of commission of the offence, they are in charge of conduct of the business of the company and were responsible for the conduct of the administration of the company or that the offence was committed by the company with the consent or connivance or on account of negligence attributable to them. Secondly that after the institution of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners there had been a settlement between the parties, pursuant to which a memorandum of understanding was entered into and therefore that memorandum of understanding, superseded the cheques issued earlier and these prosecutions are not maintainable under the circumstances.

(3.) It is needless to go into the specifics of the case inasmuch as these petitions can be disposed of on the question of law raised. Admittedly the cheques in these cases were issued by the Finance Controller of the first accused company who is not before the Court. The first petitioner is the company and the petitioners 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Director respectively. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused have issued the cheques with the intention of cheating the complainant knowing fully well that they do not have sufficient amounts in their account with the bank to make payment for the said cheques. Evidently no specific averment to the effect that petitioners 2 and 3 were in charge of tile company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business has been made in the complaint. Equally no allegation that the petitioner-company committed the offence with the consent or connivance of the petitioners 2 and 3 or on account of the negligence attributable to them has been made. The question that is germane for consideration at this stage is whether, in the absence of such averments in the complaints, the complaints as against the petitioners 2 and 3, who are accused 2 and 3 in the cases, are sustainable or not,