Karnataka High Court
Mrs Koduru Neeraja vs M/S Janatha Fish Meal And Oil Product Pvt ... on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31234
WP No. 24412 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24412 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. KODURU NEERAJA
AGEDA BOUT 39 YEARS
W/ON SURESH KUMAR REDDY
KOLANAKUDURU, MANUBOLU
SPSP, NELLORE
ANDRA PRADESH - 524 405.
Digitally
signed by
SWAPNA V ...PETITIONER
Location: high
court of (BY SRI. PRATHAMADASHA KRUPA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
karnataka
AND:
1. M/S JANATHA FISH MEAL AND
OIL PRODUCT PVT LTD.
REGD OFFICE AT NO.4/1
MANOR FISHEREIES ROAD
KOTA - 576 221
BRAHAMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR SHETTY
2. M/S SONAC
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGD. UNDER INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
REGD. OFFICE AT NO.24/1/1574
1ST CROSS ROAD, DARGAMATTI
NELLORE, SPSR - 5624 003
ANDRA PRADESH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31234
WP No. 24412 of 2019
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARSHA HAVERI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VINAYAKA .B., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 - SD)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CRPC PRAYING TO QUASH ORDERS AT ANNEXURE - C DATED
20.06.2018 AND ANNEXURE - D DATED 26.06.2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT UDUPI IN C.C.NO.2127/18
SO FAR AS THE 3RD ACCUSED IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being accused No.3 in CC No.2127 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, is seeking to set aside the orders at Annexure-C dated 20.06.2018 and Annexure-D dated 26.06.2018 and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 are absent. No representation. Heard learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and on perusal of the materials that are -3- NC: 2024:KHC:31234 WP No. 24412 of 2019 placed on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made any grounds for the quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against her?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
4. Respondent No.1 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No.630 of 2018 against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is specifically stated that accused No.1 is the partnership firm and accused Nos.2 and 3 are its partners. It is the contention of the complainant that accused No.3 who is the petitioner herein is the signatory to the cheque in question dated 23.04.2018 which was issued towards legally recoverable debt.
5. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that unless it is specifically stated by the complainant in the complaint that the petitioner is responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:31234 WP No. 24412 of 2019 firm as required under Section 141 of NI Act, she cannot be arrayed as accused.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K K Ahuja Vs V K Vora and another1, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its various earlier decisions summarized the position under Section 141 of NI Act and while so summarizing, it is categorically held that when the Director or an officer of the Company signed the cheque on behalf of the Company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company or make any specific allegation about consent, connivance or negligence. It is further held that the very fact that it was signed by him on behalf of the Company would give rise to responsibility under sub section (2) of section 141 of NI Act.
7. Thus, the position of law is very well settled which negatives the ground raised by the petitioner in this petition. When admittedly the petitioner being accused No.3 is the 1 (2009) 10 SCC 48 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:31234 WP No. 24412 of 2019 signatory to the cheque in question, the criminal proceedings against her is not liable to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed on record the order dated 01.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.50829 of 2018 and 50834 of 2018 and contended that these petitions were filed by accused No.2 who was one of the partner in the firm, which came to be allowed on the ground that she is not the signatory to the cheque in question and was only a partner in the partnership firm. The petitioner who is admittedly a signatory to the cheque is not entitled for such relief. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in its order dated 01.02.2019 categorically observed in paragraph 11 as under:
"11. xxx Undisputedly, the firm was represented by accused No.3 and it is she who has issued cheques which have been since dishonored against which proceedings have been initiated by the complainant. However, first respondent would be at liberty to proceed against second respondent/accused No.1 as well as third respondent/accused No.3 in the pending proceedings and no opinion is expressed in the regard."-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:31234 WP No. 24412 of 2019
9. Thus, quashing of criminal proceedings against accused No.2 will not enure in any manner in favour of the petitioner to seek similar order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24