P CHANDRA MOHAN CHOWDARY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the A.5 to A.9 in C.C.No.18 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge (for short, 'the MSJ'), Hyderabad. The respondents 2 to 4 are the defacto-complainants. It is on their private complaint, dt.30.03.1999 which is referred to police for investigation by the learned Magistrate, registered by police, Begumpet as Cr.No.112 of 1999 for the offences punishable u/sec.406, 415 and 420 IPC and subsequently referred to Central Crime Station (for short, 'CCS'), Hyderabad and after investigation filed charge sheet on 17.05.2017 mentioning Section 5 of the Protection of Depositors, Financial and Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') also, before the learned MSJ, Hyderabad who has taken cognizance and the same is now under impugnment.

(2.) The respondents 2 to 4 failed to attend to the notices even acknowledged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and perused the material on record.

(3.) The contentions in the quash petition vis-a-vis oral submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.5 to A.9 are that the A.1 is M/s Genius Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., (for short, 'the Entity') represented by A.2 among the Directors A.2 to A.9. The 2nd and 3rd complainants stated deposited 6.30lakhs and 2.15lakhs respectively for the wide publicity given by the A.1-Entity and its Directors to give attractive interest along with incentive for the investments and obtained the Fixed Deposits (FDRs) with maturity period of 12 months and when the respective FDRs. were sent to the A.1-entity for repayment, after due date, by the R.2 and R.3 including R.4, the A.1-Entity represented by A.2 failed to pay and addressed a letter on 12.02.1998 to the R.1-1st complainant allegedly tendering apology for not keeping up their commitment to return the amounts and also addressed another letter dt.25.04.1998 and issued cheque bearing No.46992 for Rs.3,52,760/- drawn on Vijaya Bank in the name of R.2 that was returned dishonored and A.2 issued several cheques to the L.Ws. 3 to 11-the prosecution witnesses also in relation to repayment of similar FDRs and the police having taken 18 years to investigate the case from the date of registration of the crime violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners though they are available for investigation and included Section 5 of the Act also as if attracting though allegations are bald and that too there are no specific allegations against the petitioners-A.5 to A.9 and merely because they are mere Directors that too nominal Directors and not even signatories to the cheques cannot be made liable for whatever amounts deposited were paid back by cheques by the A.1-Entity represented by the A.2 and if at all there is any offence of cheating committed by A.1 represented by the A.2 for the cheques issued. Apart from it, there is no any breach of trust for no any entrustment. The A.6 and A.7 arrayed as accused in C.C.No.464/99 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the offence punishable u/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act') and those proceedings were quashed in Crl.P.No.6193/99 by the High Court by order, dt.13.11.2001 with an observation of no any specific allegations against them as to their capacity as Directors and in the absence of showing they are in-charge of the day-today affairs with any specific role they played, to make liable for any offence from any connivance and consent in its commission and thereby cannot be made liable. The petitioners further submit that the above order supra is final. The learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to take cognizance against any of the petitioners and thereby the cognizance order is liable to be quashed.