RBF NIDHI LIMITED Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are accused 1 and 2 in CC.No.1012 of 2000 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Secunderabad, seek quashing of the proceedings by invoking inherent powers.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 8-7-1999 the respondents 2, 3 and 4 who are de facto complainants deposited Rs.31,000/-, Rs.7,500/- and Rs.41,400/- with the first petitioner company as a short term deposit for a period of 90 days. After maturity, on 7-2-2000 a cheque bearing No.010696 was issued in favour of second respondent for Rs.82,961/- drawn on ICICI Banking Corporation Limited, S.D. Road Branch, Secunderabad signed by two whole time directors. The said cheque was deposited into the bank and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, a legal notice is stated to have been issued on 31-7-2000.

(3.) While so, the first petitioner herein sent a demand draft bearing No.26137 dated 8-8-2000 for an amount of Rs.4,150/-. In response to legal notice dated 31-7-2000, a reply notice dated 21-8-2000 was issued by first and second petitioners. In the complaint it is specifically stated in the reply notice dated 21-8-2000 that due to mismanagement in the first petitioner company by the erstwhile Board of Directors, the company remained closed throughout January, 2000 and an application was made to the Company Law Board in C.P.No.2 of 2000 on 18-1-2000, thereby, the erstwhile Board was superseded and new Board was reconstituted. The second petitioner was appointed as Chairman and the new Board assumed charge on 21-9-2000. In the reply notice 21-8-2000, there was a specific reference of interim orders of Company Law Board, which form part of the complaint.