Karnataka High Court
Mr. Nitin Saxena vs Mr. Rajendar Rajanahally on 13 October, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3337 OF 2021
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3350 OF 2021
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2615 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2616 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2617 OF 2023
Digitally
signed by CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2620 OF 2023
SHAKAMBARI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2023
KARNATAKA
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARAM RAMAPRIYAN
S/O SRI P V KRISHNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.43/A
VAISHNAVI WOODS, G-03, 1ST MAIN, 3RD PHASE
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU -560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D AND LEGAL AXIS., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
AND:
SMT RAJANAHALLY KALA BHIMAANAND
W/O LATE R L BHIMANAND
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT D NO. 194, KALA KUNJ
3RD MAIN, P J EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-577002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.R.HIREMATHAD AND N RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
LEARNED J.M.F.C. - I COURT DAVANAGERE AS ACCUSED NO.3
IN C.C.NO.122/2021 U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT R/W SECTION 200
OF CR.P.C. AT ANNEXURE-B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3337 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NITIN SAXENA
NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARVY REALTY (INDIA)LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
USHA SADAN, 24 PREM NAGAR
IN FRONT OF JAWAHAR BHAWAN
ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW-226001
2. MR PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARAM RAMAPRIYAN
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARVY REALTY (INDIA)LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.46 AVENUE 4 STREET NO.1 BANJARA HILLS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
HYDERABAD-500034
AND ALSO, G-03, VAISHNAVI WOODS
#43/A, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, B-560076
3. MR PRAVINBHAI BHAGWANJI AMLANI
NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARVY REALTY (INDIA) LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
C-8 GOKUL NANDANVAN CHS LTD
MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD
OPP DOMINOS PIZZA SHOP ANDHERI
MUMBAI-400093
4. MR PONUGOTI JANARDHAN
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
KARVY REALTY (INDIA) LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
14-24/4 PLOT NO.150 ROAD NO.22 RN REDDY
NAGAR, BESIDE TKR COLLEGE, MEER PET
SAROORNAGAR K V R
HYDERABAD -500097
5. MR C PARATHASARATHY
S/O MR C RAJAGOPALAN
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
NO.46 AVENUE 4 STREET NO.1 BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD -500034
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NIKHIL K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. RAJENDAR RAJANAHALLY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.157 RAJA PRAKRUTHI APARTMENTS
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
B-302 4TH CROSS IST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.C.SUDARSHAN., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO i. QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN PCR
NO.7108/2020 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A. ii. SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT AND
ISSUANCE OF PROCESS/SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS,
DATED 22.10.2020 PASSED BY HONOURABLE XXII
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-B AND
ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.13739/2020 PENDING
BEFORE THE XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3350 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NITIN SAXENA
NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARVY REALTY(INDIA) LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
USHA SADAN, 24-PREM NAGAR
IN FRONT OF JAWAHAR BHAWAN
ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW-226001
2. MR PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARAM RAMAPRIYAN
NOW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARVY REALTY (INDIA) LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
G.03, VISHNAVI WOODS, #43/A IST MAIN ROAD
J.P. NAGAR 3RD PHASE BANGALORE-560076
3. MR PRAVINBHAI BHAGWANJI AMLANI
NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARVY REALTY (INDIA) LIMITED
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
C-8, GOKUL NANDANVAN CHS LTD
MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD
OPP DOMINOS PIZZA SHOP
ANDHERI, MUMBAI-400093
4. MR.PONUGOTI JANARDHAN
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
KARVY REALTY(INDIA) LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
14-24/4, PLOT NO.150
ROAD NO.22, RN REDDY NAGAR
BESIDE T K R COLLEGE
MEER PET, SAROORNAGAR K V R
HYDERABAD-500097
5. MR C PARATHASARATHY
S/O MR C RAJAGOPALAN
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
NO.46, AVENUE 4
STREET NO.1, BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD-500034
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NIKHIL K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RB RAJENDAR HUF
REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA
MR RAJENDRA RAJANAHALLY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.157, RAJA PRAKRUTHI APARTMENTS
B-302, 4TH CROSS, IST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.C.SUDARSHAN., ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN PCR.
NUMBER 7107 OF 2020 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE - A. 2. SET-
ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNISANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS / SUMMONS TO THE
PETITIONERS, DATED 22.10.2020, PASSED BY THE HONBLE
XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARN RAMAPRIYAN
S/O SRI P V KRISHNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.43/A VAISHNAVI WOODS
G-03, 1STMAIN, 3RD PHASE
J P NAGAR, BENGALURU -560076.
(AS PER AADHAR CARD)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D AND LEGAL AXIS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR VATSALA RADHAKRISHNAN
W/O RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT NO. 159, MADHAVI SANKAR APTS
WHEELER ROAD
BENGALURU -560005.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRIYA V.B.SHETTAR AND RAMAIAH., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED XV
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BENGALURU THEREBY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER AS
ACCUSED NO.5 IN C.C NO. 35889/2021
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2615 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARN RAMAPRIYAN
S/O SRI P V KRISHNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.43/A, VAISHNAVI WOODS
G-03, 1ST MAIN, 3RD PHASE
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU -560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D AND LEGAL AXIS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR MANGESH KAMATH
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. B-606 MANTRI TRANQUIL APARTMENTS
NO.7913, GUBLALA VILLAGE
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU -560061.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K C SUDARSHAN., ADVOCATE)
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS FILED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED XXI ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU THEREBY
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.3 IN
C.C.NO.27409/2021 AT ANNEXURE-A.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2616 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARN RAMAPRIYAN
S/O SRI P V KRISHNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.43/A, VAISHNAVI WOODS
G-03, 1ST MAIN, 3RD PHASE
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU -560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D. AND LEGAL AXIS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SANJEEV MURALI MOHAN
S/O SRI S N MURALI MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, 2ND CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD
SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU -560004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED XX
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BENGALURU THEREBY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER AS
ACCUSED NO.8 IN C.C.NO.10019/2022.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2617 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARN RAMAPRIYAN
S/O SRI P V KRISHNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.43/A, VAISHNAVI WOODS
G-03, 1ST MAIN, 3RD PHASE
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU -560076.
(AS PER AADHAR CARD)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D AND LEGAL AXIS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI V M SUNDARAM S/O LATE R V SUBRAMANIAM
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.688, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
HAL 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560075.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MUJTABA H., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED XIV
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BENGALURU THEREBY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER AS
ACCUSED NO.3 IN C.C.NO.54984/2021.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2620 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHIVADI BHAYANKARN RAMAPRIYAN
S/O SRI P V KRISHNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.43/A VAISHNAVI WOODS
G-03, 1ST MAIN, 3RD PHASE
J P NAGAR, BENGALURU -560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D AND LEGAL AXIS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI NIRMALA PRAMOD
W/O SRI PRAMOD KUMAR SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 304, 19TH MAIN
NANDINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU -560096.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MUJTABA H., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED XIV
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BENGALURU, THEREBY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER AS
ACCUSED NO.3 IN C.C.NO.54985/2021.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509
CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021
CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021
CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023
CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
ORDER
Petitioner-accused No.3-Prathivadi Bhayankaran Ramapriyan in Crl.P.Nos.2615/2023, 2617/2023, 2616/2023, 2590/2023, 2618/2023 and 2620/2023 has filed these petitions under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos.27409/2021, 54984/2021, 10019/2022, 35889/2021, 122/21, 54985/2021, initiated on the complaint filed by various respondents against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act').
2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 1 filed Crl.P.Nos.3337/2021 & 3350/2021 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos. 13739/2020 and 13749/2020 which were filed on the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 complaint filed by the respondents under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Sections 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. All these petitions are said to be filed by the Directors of the Karvy Realty (India) Limited, the accused No.1-company.
3. It is alleged that the respondents have filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and Section 138 r/w Section 142 of N.I. Act against the company and these petitioners for dishonour of the cheques issued by the accused No.1-company in favour of the respondents for the reasons 'account blocked' and 'debit not allowed'.
4. It is alleged by the complainants in their complaints that the investors of the 1st accused-the petitioner herein for discharging of the amount, some cheques were issued and signed by the Managing Director of the company. Hence, these complaints were filed in various Courts by the complainants challenging the same before this Court.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
5. The counsel for the petitioner Sri Raghunath has contended that the petitioner - Prathivadi Bhayankaran Ramapriyan, who was non-Executive Director of the company, he is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and he is not aware about the issuance of cheques by the company and dishonour of the cheques and he has also resigned from the company on 9th July, 2021. Hence, he is not liable for the prosecution.
6. The learned counsel further contended that the cheques were dishonoured for the reasons 'accounts were blocked' and 'debit not allowed' that the company was already held attached by the Enforcement Directorate, so many criminal cases were initiated against the Company as well as against the Directors of the company and accounts were blocked by the Income Tax Authority. Therefore, the cheques were dishonoured and there is no reason for the dishonour of the cheque on the ground of
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 insufficiency of funds and the learned counsel prayed to allow this petition.
7. Learned counsel also further submits that there is no vicarious liability under Section 141 of N.I. Act and he is not the in-charge of the company and there are no averments in the complaint made by the complainant in these cases. Therefore, prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings. In support of his case, he has relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases passed in Crl.A.../2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.)No.12/2020.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in Crl.P.Nos.2617/2023 and 2618/2023 and also counsel for the respondents in other connected petitions have seriously objected the petition mainly on the ground that the averments made in all the complaints that the accused persons were in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 company and they are all liable to discharge the liability of the company to the respondents.
9. The counsel for the respondents also contended the complainants have invested the money in the company of the petitioner and knowing fully well the cheques were issued by the company for discharging the liability for payment of their investments.
10. Smt. Priya Shettar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the respondents also contended that, earlier, cheques issued by the company have been dishonoured and thereafter, they issued some more cheques, two cheques also were dishonoured, which clearly reveals the intention of the company to cheat the investors. The matter requires trial as the reason for blocking the account and debit not allowed by the petitioner, therefore, the Court cannot quash criminal
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. The learned counsel for respondents cited various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Benches in respect of the cheques dishonoured was for the reasons 'account blocked' and 'debit not allowed'. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court.
12. Having heard the arguments so far, learned counsel for the respondents contended that resignation of Prathivadi Bhayankaran Ramapriyan was on 20th July 2021 but cheques were issued on 20.07.2020 when he was a Director prior to the date of resignation for discharging liability, therefore, the petitioner is liable under Section 141 and 138 of N.I. Act.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
13. The respondents' counsel also submits the petitioners are themselves projected as Directors still their names are the reflected in the company website. If the acceptance of resignation has not been produced, the trial Court had no occasion to peruse the same and give any findings of fact.
14. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. "Whether the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted under section 138 r/w Sec. 141 of N.I. Act for dishonor of the cheques for the reason 'Account blocked' and 'debit not allowed'
2. Whether the petitioners are not in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company and not vicariously liable under Section 141 of N.I. Act?
15. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel in respect of point No.1, the learned counsel for the
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 respondent No.1 relied upon the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case Crl.P.No.3879/13 clubbed with other cases dated 31.10.2013 wherein, Co-ordinate Benches considered in respect of the reason cheque was dishonoured as 'account was blocked'. The Co-ordinate Bench has held at paragraph No. 10 of the judgment that, "though the endorsement issued by the Bank, it is stated as account blocked there was case of insufficient fund in account blocked, on the face of it, there was insufficient fund in the account to honour the cheque issued to the respondents. Further, at whose instances and for what reason the account was blocked is not forthcoming even the account was blocked for any reason, then there was no legal impediment to pay the amount the covered under the cheque to the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that she had sufficient funds with her to honour
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 the cheques and for the reason that the account was blocked". The Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the petition.
16. Following the same judgment another Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. GOGO International Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company v/s M/s.Liliput Kidswear Ltd. & Ors., in Crl.P.No.2726/14 c/w other matters dated 24.01.2019, the another Co-ordinate Bench also held at paragraph No.5 of the order that "whether the amount was in fact lying to the credit of the respondents in their bank account as on the date of the issuance of the cheques as well as on the date of presentation of cheques is a question of fact which requires to be decided by the Court in order to determine whether the cheques in question were issued without having an intention to get them encashed so as to render the respondents liable for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and finally, the
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the petition and remitted the matter back to the trial Court".
17. Another judgment relied upon by the respondents in Crl.P.No.2984/2015 in the case of M/s.Tiffins Barytes Asbestos and Ors., v/s M/s. D.P.Exports, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench also decided the matter whether the cheques issued which were dishonoured for the reason with shara "Debit Not Allowed". The Co-ordinate Bench also held at paragraph No. 5 read as under:-
"5. As to whether the cheques in question has been stolen as contended by the accused persons is a factual issue which is required to be adjudicated by rendering evidence and it is within the domain of the jurisdictional Court. In the absence of such evidence, no finding can be recorded in that regard and as such, extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised for quashing the proceedings. Finally, the criminal petition is dismissed".
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
18. On perusal of the above three orders of the Co- ordinate Benches and even the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as to whether the reason for dishonour of cheques either "accounts blocked" or "debit not allowed" are required to be established by the petitioner and for what purpose and on whose behalf the account was blocked and debit was not allowed by the bankers. Of course, the petitioners counsel contended that the company was seized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and all the properties of the petitioners were attached by the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Authorities blocked the account, etc., But the said fact has to be established by the petitioner before the trial Court during the course of the evidence or this Court record findings of the fact that the accounts are blocked or freezed by the Authorities as per the RBI Guidelines Nos.21 to 25 as held by the Madras High Court.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 [
19. The fact whether the amount was reasonably available in the account of the company and sufficient funds were maintained and cheques were issued without deliberate intention to cheat the complainants has to be ascertained by the trial Court only after examining the witnesses and the same has to be established by the petitioners. Therefore, whether the cheques were dishonoured for the reasons 'account blocked' or 'debit not allowed' cannot be presumed by this Court merely on the contention of the petitioner that there is no deliberate intention of allowing the cheques to be dishonoured but due to bonafide reasons, the assets of the company were attached by the Authorities under the law and no such finding of facts could be recorded by this Court. Therefore, contentions raised before this Court are not sustainable under law.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
20. With regard to the vicarious liability under Section 141 of the N.I. Act the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siby Thomas vs. M/s.Somany Ceramics Ltd., The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the various judgment of the Supreme Court especially M/s.Gunmala Sales Private Limited vs. Anu Mehta and S.P.Mani's case reported in 2015(1) SCC 103 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is not averred anywhere in the complaint that the appellant was in charge of the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. What is stated in the complaint is only that the accused Nos. 2 to 6 being the partners are responsible for the day- do-day conduct and business of the company. It is also relevant to note that an overall reading of the complaint would not disclose any clear and specific role of the appellant."
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023
21. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceeding on the ground that the said case arose from the partnership firm and he retired from the partnership firm much prior to issuance of cheques and subsequently there was transaction by the firm and cheques were issued in the year 2015 and hence, the said claim was not liable for prosecution under Sec.138 or 141 of N.I. Act. Here in this case, the petitioner Prativadi Bhayankaran Ramapriyan who is said to be the Director of the company who was resigned from the company only on 20.07.2021, whereas, the cheques were issued in July, 2020 prior to his resignation. All the cheques were issued by the company. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that since he had resigned from the post he is not liable under Section 141 of N.I. Act, is not sustainable under law and further contention of the petitioner is that Prativadi Bhayankaran
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 Ramapriyan is only non-executive Director. On perusal of the Form No.32, nowhere it is stated that the petitioner is a non-Executive Director. Though the petitioner had signed the cheques, but the same is in the capacity as the Directors of the companies. The other petitioners in Crl.P. Nos.3337/2021, 3350/21, where this Prathivadi Bhayakaran Ramapriyan was one of the petitioner apart from other accused persons.
22. The learned counsel for respondent Smt. Priya V.B.Shettar also produced some website extract which shows that the said Prativadi Bhayankaran Ramapriyan and also Parthasarthy are still shown as Directors and managing the Karvy group of companies. Whether the petitioner was in-charge of the company or they are all not responsible persons for the day-to-day affairs of the company are the matters to be considered by the trial Court only after analyzing the evidence. Since all the
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 respondents in their complaints have categorically mentioned and various paragraphs stating that these petitioners who are the accused persons are in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the accused no.1-company. There is a specific averments made in the complaint regarding the consent and connivance of the companies. Of course, the petitioner counsel also produced some press release showing some Enforcement Directorate attaches Rupees 110 crores in Karvy scam but this document cannot be considered by this Court. It is not in dispute that the respondents are the investors of the said company and the cheques were issued by the said company and whether it is legally liable since the cheques were issued by the said company are all matters which requires trial. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents were able to show these petitioners are Directors as on the date of the issuance of the cheques in
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37509 CRL.P No. 2618 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 3337 of 2021 CRL.P No. 3350 of 2021 CRL.P No. 2590 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2616 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2617 of 2023 CRL.P No. 2620 of 2023 favour of the respondents and the cheques were dishonoured for various reasons. Therefore, this Court cannot quash the proceedings on that fact without going for trial, I am of the opinion that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, all the petitions are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PSJ