A SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in STC No. 56 of 2006 on the file of the First additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Records are perused.

(3.) THE second respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr. P. C. accusing the petitioner of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act' ). According to the complainant, the accused joined in their company as Plant Manager in 1977 and was promoted as General Manager in 1982 and that the accused obtained complete control and grip over the company, which includes monitoring day to day transactions since 1985 and he started mis-utilizing his authority as General manager and started playing double game adversely affecting the finances of the company, as a result of which, the company incurred heavy loss of Rs. 25,00,000/-in 2003-2004 and Rs. 33,00,000/- in 2004-2005 and the complainant's company questioned the accused about his fraudulent practices, misuse of technology, theft of machinery, exploitation of good will of the company to promote accused company and there was a mediation in the presence of Rachapogula Gopal and others and having no other way, the accused admitted the loss caused to the company due to his illegal and fraudulent practices and volunteered to compensate the loss and accordingly, gave a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on 08. 08. 2005 drawn on State Bank of India, Yerramukkapalli to make good the loss sustained by the company on account of his mis-deeds and when the said cheque was presented on 6. 10. 2005 in the same Bank, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the accused pleaded for 15 days time and accordingly, the complainant waited and again presented the said cheque on 24. 10. 2005, but again it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the complainant gave a notice on 29. 10. 2005 demanding payment of the amount and the accused received the notice on 2. 11. 2005 but did not give any reply and thereafter, the complaint was filed.