A VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the petitioner is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR No .311 of 1992 of Panjagutta Police Station and consequent investigation as void being illegal and unconstitutional.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are briefly as follows:- The petitioner A. Veerabhadra Rao and another E. Sridhar (Accused Nos.1 & 2) approached the 3rd respondent (who is the complainant) for supply of cement and in that connection six cheques for a total value of Rs.72,000/- have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. At the time of the issue of the above post-dated cheques, the accused represented to the complainant that the above cheques will be honoured on presentation. Believing the version of the accused, the complainant (R-3) presented those post-dated cheques on the respective due dates in the Bank for collection. But all the above cheques were returned dishonoured by the bank with remarks "Funds insufficient Refer to Drawer". Thereupon, the 3rd respondent-complainant intimated the said fact to the accused through legal notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheques. But no efforts were made by the accused to make the payments. Thereupon, after following the prescribed procedure, the 3rd respondent- complainant filed a private complaint under Section 420 I.P.C. on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who in turn forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which is under investigation. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is A-l in the above complaint filed by R-3 (complainant).

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that he is only a partner in the firm and A-2 is a servant in the firm, that A-2 has issued the cheques and that he is not liable for the cheques issued by A-2. Issuing of cheques by a servant on behalf of principal amounts to issuing of the cheques by the principal. At this stage it is not desirable to hold that the servant has issued the cheques in his individual capacity. It is a matter of investigation. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that both the petitioner, who is A-l, and E. Sridhar, A-2 both have approached the 3rd respondent and entered into negotiations with the latter for the purchase of cement and in that connection they have passed on six post-dated cheques for a total sum of Rs.72,000/-. The truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the accused is a matter of investigation. The petitioner is admittedly a partner of the firm. It cannot be said that the investigation that is being done on the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent is void on any count.