RAJ KUMAR Vs. VENKTESWARA COTTAN GINNING MILLSNANDYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience) to quash the criminal complaints filed as against certain of the Directors and the Managing Director of the Company in question-the first accused on several grounds. The petitioners in all these quash petitions are admittedly persons who had not issued the cheques. In other words they are said to be either Managing Director or the Directors of the Company in question other than those who had issued the cheques in question which were said to have been dishonoured. In Criminal Petition No. 1000 of 2003, it is stated that A-5 and A-6 issued cheque on behalf of A-1 company. It is stated that in other cases, A-3 and A-6 had issued the said cheques and those accused who had issued the cheques are not questing the proceedings in this batch of criminal petitions.

(2.) Sri Abinand Kumar Shavili, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in all these criminal petitions would maintain that as per his instructions in almost all the matters the amounts had been settled and in certain of the matters the complaints in fact had been withdrawn and in certain of the matters such applications are said to be pending and this aspect may have to be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the allegations made in the different complaints and in fact drawn distinction between the batch of complaints which were referred to as Allagadda branch and Nandayal branch of Kurnool and also pointed out that except vague allegations that these accused also had given the consent and they had knowledge about these transactions and issuance of cheques, specific allegations to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short hereinafter referred to as the Act) had not been made in the respective complaints. The learned counsel meticulously had taken this Court through the averments made in the different complaints and had pointed out that this vague allegation that the other accused other than A-1 also are aware of the business transactions of the first accused company and they had knowledge about the issuance of cheques, these allegations may not be sufficient and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also pointed out that even otherwise these petitioners had resigned as Managing Director or Directors and the specific dates had been given and the documents in relating thereto are being produced and in view of the same that inasmuch as the resignations had been accepted and these being the public documents, no further proof would be required and on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also would contend that the settlement between the parties is well evidenced by several receipts which are being produced and in view of the same, the same can be taken note of and on this ground also these proceedings need not be further proceeded with.

(3.) Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel representing the contesting respondents-complainants in all these matters would contend that as far as criminal petition Nos.1037 of 2003, 1040 of 2003, 1043 of 2003,1035 of 2003 and 1039 of 2003 are concerned, the concerned C.Cs. in fact had been withdrawn in view of the fact that the matters had been settled. The learned counsel also would maintain that in other matters, commenting in all fairness had submitted that no doubt if these complaints are carefully analyzed there is some slight difference in the language employed in the averments made but in substance the requirements of Section 141 of the Act had been complied with and hence, the proceedings need not be interfered with at this stage. The learned counsel also would contend that in the light of the view expressed by this Court that the resignation of the Directors may have to be gone into only at the appropriate stage and on that ground the proceedings cannot be quashed in a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The decision of the Madras High Court cannot be said to be binding decision. Hence, these questions are left open to be decided at appropriate stage. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.