DUSHYANT M. VORA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the 6th respondent-accused in C.C. No. 1476 of 2007, on the file of the Court of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 2002 (for short 'the N.I Act').

(2.) The specific case of the petitioner is that the second respondent bank filed a complaint against third respondent- Akkineni Textiles Limited and eight others for the offence under Sections 138 to 142 of the N.I Act. The third respondent-company is registered under the Companies Act and obtained a loan for a sum of Rs. 1,000 lakhs to the accused company for expansion of project envisaging installation of 16 numbers of indigenous shuttle looms and 12 numbers of imported shuttleless terry looms and for setting up of dyeing and processing facilities to offer a range of colours at Ramachandra Nagar, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District vide letter of intent dated 06-07-1998 as well as 19-02-1999. The third respondent-company accepted the loan and entered into a loan agreement on 26-02-1999 with the second respondent bank on certain terms and conditions as mentioned therein. The second respondent bank has fully disbursed the loan amount to the accused company. In the process, the accused company have issued post-dated cheques in favour of the second respondent bank. During the course of continuation of the said loan transaction, the second respondent bank has presented two cheques bearing Nos.0238320 and 0238321, dated 20-07-2003, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each respectively for realisation in its bank i.e., HDFC Bank Limited, Vijayawada. However, the said two cheques were dishonoured and returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' vide Banker's Return Memo dated 26-07-2003. The complainant-second respondent received the same on 28-07-2003. After receiving the said Cheque Return Memo, the second respondent bank issued a legal notice to the accused on 11-08-2003 demanding the dishonoured cheque amount within 15 days. The said notice was served on the 3rd respondent company on 13-08-2003 as well as on the accused Nos.3, 6, 8, 9 and 7. In spite of the receipt of the said legal notice, no reply notice has been issued and no amounts are paid. Therefore, the complaint was registered against the accused including the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 6. It is relevant to mention that as far as the petitioner is concerned, in the complaint, no specific allegation is made against him, but for stating that the petitioner is one of the directors, who are accused Nos.3 to 9 and are responsible for the day to day business of the 3rd respondent company and also for the person incharge of the 3rd respondent company. Assailing the said proceedings initiated, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent in the year 2011 i.e., on 17-11-2011, there is no representation on its behalf.