K R TIRUVANGADAM Vs. DHAVARACHETTY COTTON COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. 160/99 on the file of Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Proddatur.

(2.) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No. 160/99. The petitioners are said to be the Directors of Malnadu Holdings Private Limited and they are dealing business in the name and style of Sengamalam Spinners Private Limited. 1st respondent is the supplier of cotton to Sangambalam Spinners Private Limited. It appears that an amount of Rs. 9,63,702-00 was due from the said firm. Thereupon, the petitioners gave two cheques bearing No. 262394 and 505290 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank Limited, Mannergudi. They are said to have been presented for collection on 16-1-1999 and 18-1-1999 respectively and the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The said fact has been informed to the 1st respondent on 27-1-1999. A telegram was issued on 6-2-1999 demanding the cheque amount. As the amount was not paid 1st respondent filed the complaint before the I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this criminal petition.

(3.) The learned senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, assails the proceedings on two grounds. Firstly, he contends that company is not made as an accused to the impugned proceedings and therefore, the petition is not maintainable against the Directors of the Company. In support his contention, he relied on a decision reported in D. Chandra Reddy v. Gourisetti Prabhakar. It is also contended by the senior Counsel for the petitioners that inspite of tendering the amount by the accused, 1st respondent refused to receive the same and the complaint is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on a decision reported in Pradeep Chandran v. Nimmi Velappan. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has placed reliance on a decision reported in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Limited, and contends that the petition is maintainable though company is not prosecuted, the other directors cannot escape the liability. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions. Rama Bhushanam and another v. Registrar of Companies, R. Ramachandran v. Yerram Sesha Reddy and another, B. Manipal Reddy v. State of A.P. Suraj Theatre and others v. Smt. Kakarla Bharathi and another. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the question of tendering the amount is a question of fact to be decided on evidence and in that view of the matter the inherent powers cannot be exercised in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court.