P RATNAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is accused No.8, in C.C.No.467 of 2012 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent herein filed a private complaint against accused Nos.1 to 8 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that accused No.1 company was represented by accused Nos.2 to 8 and engaged in the business of execution of EPC and turnkey contracts. While so, A2 to A8 had approached the 2nd respondent/complainant to avail trade finance amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- for six months and accordingly the complainant had advanced the said amount. Thereafter, the accused issued two cheques on 20.01.2012 and 29.01.2012 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,00,000/- respectively, drawn on Axis Bank Limited, towards repayment of loan amount, in favour of the 2nd respondent/complainant. When the said cheques were presented by the second respondent in City Union Bank, Hyderabad, for realization, the same were returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" vide cheque return memos dated 16.03.2012 and 15.03.2012 respectively and thereafter a notice was issued calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated time. Even after receipt of notice, the petitioner and other accused neither paid the amount nor issued any reply. The petitioner arrayed as accused No.8 on the sole ground that she is one of the Directors of accused No.1 company.

(3.) Though vakalath filed on behalf of the second respondent, there is no representation on his behalf. Hence, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State and perused the record.