KALLEM KARUNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt.Kallem Karuna w/o K.Ananth Reddy is A.3 in C.C.Nos.163 and 164 of 2015 on the file of the X Special Magistrate, Ranga Reddy district, at Hasthinapuram which are outcome of private complaints dt.18.02.2015 filed by the self-same complainant-N.Venkateshwar Reddy against self-same three accused viz: M/s Vijayadurga Estates and Company(for short, 'Company') represented by its Managing Partner Sri Kallem Venugopal Reddy-A.1, against individual Sri Kallem Venugopal Reddy-A.2 and Smt.Kallem Karuna-A.3-the petitioner herein taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate supra for the self-same offences punishable u/sec.138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(for short, 'the N.I.Act'), for dishonour of cheque bearing Nos.137785 for Rs.30lakhs in C.C.No.163 of 2015 and cheque bearing No.137784 for Rs.85,57,000/- in C.C.No.164 of 2015 both dt.04.12.2014 issued in the name of said Venkatewar Reddy-the complainant and the drawer of the cheque from the account of A.1-company is, its Managing Partner-A.2 to say it is the firm that issued cheque as its drawer. A.1 and A.2 are shown as R.3 and R.4 respectively in these Criminal Petitions. The said cognizance orders are the impugnment herein.

(2.) The common contentions in both the quash petitions between the same parties are that the learned Magistrate falsely taken cognizance against the petitioner as there is no any statutory notice issued by the complainant to her and with no specific averments against her and even she is not a signatory of the alleged cheque within the meaning of the drawer of there is no any legally enforceable debt or otherwise and if at all as stated by the complainant, the amounts taken by the A.2, he is liable at best in the absence of showing the amounts lent to the A.1-Company which is a registered partnership firm covered by deed, dt.26.10.2009 to which the petitioner(A.3), A.2, K.Karunakar Reddy and K.Padmaja are partners not even impleaded and there is already a civil suit O.S.No.312 of 2015 for rendition of accounts of A.1-Company with a petition in I.A. No.53 of 2015 on 01.06.2015 including for rejection of plaint and those averments show she is no way responsible for day-to-day affairs and thereby cognizance order is liable to be set aside for nothing to make her liable for issuance and otherwise of the so called cheques.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.3 reiterates the same. Whereas, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that the very complaint averments when constitute cause of action for the complaint filed for the offence committed, cognizance was rightly taken by the learned Magistrate and for the cheque issued by the firm represented by the Managing Partner as drawer of the partners responsible for day-to-day affairs liable and the complaint averments disclose the same and there is nothing to quash the proceedings and stay vacate petition with counter in the present quash petitions reiterated the same and thereby sought for dismissal of the quash petitions.