Telangana High Court
Sreedhar Reddy Duddukunta vs The State Of Telangana on 28 March, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1682 OF 2024
% Delivered on: 28-03-2025
Between:
# Mr. Sreedhar Reddy Duddukunta .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor & another .. Respondents
! For Petitioner : Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy
^ For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Eranki Phani Kumar
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. (2012) 1 SCC 520
2. MANU/SCOR/159020/2023
2
KL,J
Crl.P.No.1682 of 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1682 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in S.T.C (NI) No.1410 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act").
3. The petitioner herein filed present criminal petition contending that he has submitted his resignation for the post of Directorship of accused No.1 Company on 22.05.2019. Accused No.1 Company had also submitted statutory Form DIR-12 with the Registrar of Companies acknowledging resignation of the petitioner. In proof of the same, he has filed copy of Form DIR-12. 3
KL,J Crl.P.No.1682 of 2024 Therefore, as on the date of issuance of subject cheques bearing Nos.292192 and 296353, dated 30.12.2020 and 22.02.2021 respectively, the petitioner herein is not a director of accused No.1 Company. Respondent No.2 knowing the same filed the aforesaid complaint against him. Having considered the fact that the petitioner herein is no more the Director of accused No.1 company, vide order dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.P. No.5655 of 2022, the High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.12712 of 2022 registered for the similar offence. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in S.T.C (NI) No.1410 of 2022 against the petitioner is an abuse process of law and, thus, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the said aspects are triable issues. The petitioner has to face trial, prove the same and it is for the trial Court to consider the said aspects.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 1 and 1 . (2012) 1 SCC 520 4 KL,J Crl.P.No.1682 of 2024 Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh2 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Perusal of record would reveal that Criminal Petition No.5655 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C before the High Court of Karnataka to quash the entire proceedings against him in C.C.No.12712 of 2022 (PCR.No.4269 of 2022) for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the said case. It is also contended that the petitioner herein, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C. No.12712 of 2022 and Managing Director of accused No.1 Company ceased to be the Director of the Company on 22.05.2019, which is evident from Form DIR - 12 issued by the Registrar of Companies and the subject cheque in the said case was issued on 15.07.2021. On consideration of the said facts, Criminal Petition No.5655 of 2022 was allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.12712 of 2022 were quashed against the petitioner herein by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
2 . MANU/SCOR/159020/2023 5 KL,J Crl.P.No.1682 of 2024
7. In Anita Malhotra1, the appellant therein had resigned from the post of Directorship of the company w.e.f. 31.08.1998, whereas cheques were issued on 01.06.2004. She has filed certified copy of annual return of the company for the succeeding year of her resignation as obtained from Registrar of Companies and uncertified copy of Form-32 along with acknowledgment. On consideration of the same, the Apex Court held that annual return is a public document in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section - 74 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Accordingly, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused therein.
8. Even in Adhiraj Singh2, the Apex Court reiterated the said principle and quashed the proceedings against the appellant therein for the offence under Section - 138 of N.I. Act.
9. In the light of the said principle, as discussed supra, in the present case also, the petitioner herein had submitted his resignation on 22.05.2019 for the post of directorship of accused No.1 Company and also submitted statutory Form DIR-12 with the Registrar of Companies acknowledging resignation of the 6 KL,J Crl.P.No.1682 of 2024 petitioner. Form DIR-12 is a public document in terms Section - 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. Section - 74 deals with 'public documents' and the same is reproduced hereunder:
"74. Public documents.--The following documents are public documents: --
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts --
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept in any State of private documents."
Respondent No.2 failed to produce any document/evidence to dispute the same and to disbelieve Form DIR-12.
11. As stated above, the petitioner herein had submitted his resignation for the post of Directorship of accused No.1 Company on 22.05.2019, whereas the subject cheques bearing Nos.292192 and 296353 were issued on 30.12.2020 and 22.02.2021 respectively i.e., after resignation by the petitioner herein for the 7 KL,J Crl.P.No.1682 of 2024 post of Directorship of accused No.1 Company. Therefore, the petitioner herein is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of accused No.1 Company. Thus, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of N.I. Act. In view of the same, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the subject C.C. is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner herein are liable to be quashed.
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C (NI) No.1410 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused No.4 alone.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 28th March, 2025 Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
(B/O.) Bw