SAVITHRI RADHA KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the 29 Criminal Cases wherein she is appearing as Accused No.3. A batch of 29 Criminal Cases were filed under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I.Act") by several complainants in different Criminal Courts in Guntur against three accused viz., 1) M/s. Lakshmi Ganesha Textiles Limited Rep.by its Managing Director-Vikram Naidu Radhakrishnan, 2) Vikram Naidu Radhakrishnan and 3) Savithri Radhakrishnan, with more or less similar pleas to the effect that 1st accused is the Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, carrying business in yarn and A.2 and A.3 are its Managing Director and Director respectively and they are having day-to-day control and supervision over the affairs of A.1-company and during the course of their business transaction, they issued cheques to the complainants, drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Coimbatore and on presentation by the Complainants in different banks at Guntur, the cheques were dishonored on the ground that payment was stopped by the drawer. After completion of legal formalities, the complainants filed Criminal Cases under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act, against the aforesaid accused.

(2.) The Accused No.3 filed the instant batch of Criminal Petitions seeking to quash the proceedings on the pleas that the petitioner was innocent and unnecessarily implicated without there being any incriminating material to connect her with the alleged offence; learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences in a highly mechanical fashion though there is absolutely no semblance of material to show that the petitioner was responsible for issuance of the cheques or she was in-charge and having control and supervision over the day-to-day affairs of A.1 company and on the other hand, Form-32 submitted by A.1-company would show that the petitioner was a non-Executive Director w.e.f. 07.12007 and ceased as such, w.e.f, 23.11.2012; A.1-company is managed by A.2 as its Managing Director; the Balance Sheet of the Company would show that no remuneration was paid to the petitioner; and all these would manifest that the petitioner was no way connected with the affairs of A.1-company and she was not having any day-to-day control and supervision over the affairs of A.1-company; above all, the petitioner was not the signatory to the cheques and hence, the proceedings against her in all the Criminal Cases are liable to be quashed, having been fell foul of law.

(3.) The respondent No.2/complainant filed counter and additional counter and opposed the Criminal Petitions inter alia contending that during the business transactions with the complainant companies in 2011 and 2012, the petitioner/A.3 was in occupation of the business of A.1- company and she was bodily present in the company and on the respective dates of issuance of cheques also, she was actively participating in the business transactions which was evident from the relevant documents of the Company and she was having full knowledge about the issuance of subject cheques and their dishonor. It was contended that the petitioner/A.3 in the capacity of Chairman for M/s. Lakshmi Ganesha Textiles Limited (A.1), issued letters on 20.02.2012 to M/s. Sri Rama Cotton Ginning and Oil Mills, Koyavaripalem and also to M/s. Sri Vijaya Venkateswara Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd, Dokiparru, stating that their company paid money to the respective Mills by way of RTGS and that the Mill owners assured that they would not insist for further payment for the next two months. The petitioner also wrote a letter on 21.06.2012 that the mortgage of Ac.0-66 cents of land belonging to Vikram. R. Naidu and Miss Diya R. Naidu would be created in favour of four parties and these letters would show, she was actively participating in the affairs of A.1-company. R.2 further pleaded that the petitioner had full knowledge with regard to the issuance of cheques in favour of complainants by A.1-company and signed by A.2, and she consented and therefore, she cannot be exonerated from the criminal cases. Whether she ceased to be a Director/Non-Executive Director is a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined in the quash petitions and hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.