D Damodar Raju v. State & Anr

2011. By 20* April, 2012 respondent no. 2/complainant had paid advance of ?1.[5] crores to petitioner M/s. Ratna Construction. Representatives of respondent no. 2/coniplainant asked the representatives of M/s. Ratna Construction to furnish four undated cheques to it to the tune of ^1.[5] crores. Accordingly, cheques bearing nos. 299877, 299878, 299879 and 299880 of ^36 lacs each drawn on ING Vyasa Bank Ltd. were issued by M/s. Ratna Construction to respondent no. 2/complainant vide letter dated 28* April,

2012. Thereafter, two more undated cheques bearing nos. 299890 and 299891 of ^25 lacs each, drawn on the aforesaid bank were given vide letter dated 16* August, 2012. Respondent no. 2/complainant acknowledged the receipt of the cheques towards 'security' vide letter dated 11* June, 2013. Disputes arose between respondent no. 2/complainant and petitioner M/s. Ratna Construction. Respondent no. 2/complainant maliciously deposited the aforesaid security cheques with its bank. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner D. Damodar Raju was neither the authorised representative nor partner of M/s. Ratna Construction and was not vicariously liable for the offence under io Section 138 of the Act allegedly committed by M/s. Ratna Construction by taking aid of Section 141 of the Act. Shri D. Damodar Raju was not responsible for the conduct of business of M/s. Ratna Construction. The cheques were given to respondent no. 2/complainant as security in the year 2012 and had become time barred in the year 2014, when the same were presented. Even otherwise, undated cheques were given to respondent NO. 2/complainant by way of security and were not issued in discharge of any liability or debt, either in whole or in part. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that respondent NO. 2/complainant has specifically averred in the complaint that respondent NO. 2/complainant had placed work order on the petitioners as Sub-contractor, duly acknowledged by the accused persons (petitioners) in New Delhi, for infrastructure development for Power Equipment Manufacturing Plant of NBPPL at YSR Puram District Chittoor, A.P, Respondent no. 2/complainant advanced money to the petitioners on their commitment to provide bank guarantee in favour of respondent no. 2/complainant. Petitioners failed to provide bank guarantee, inasmuch as failed to complete entrusted work and expressed their inability to carry out the work any further and issued six account payee cheques, all dated 13^*^ March, 2014 for a total sum of ?1,94,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd. as security against their liability of advance amount received from respondent no. 2/complainant. Petitioners asked the complainant to encash the cheques in discharge of their liability to pay the aforesaid amount of money, which petitioners received from the respondent no. 2/complainant. Consequently, the aforesaid cheques werepresented for encashment but same werereturned dishonoured with the return memos on the ground "funds insufficient". Cheque amounts were not paid despite service oflegal notice dated 9^^ April, 2014, hence the complaint. A perusal of the cheques, placed on record, makes it clear that the same bear the date of 13^^ March, 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that dates have been manipulated. Learned counsel has further contended that cheques had expired after six months from the date of its issuance in the year 2012, thus, no offence under Section 138 ofthe Act is attracted. It is noted that bank has not returned the cheques on the ground that the same had become outdated. In fact, cheques have been returned on the ground "funds insufficient". From the facts detailed above, it is clear that allegations and counter allegations, have been levelled by the respondent no. 2/complainant and accused persons (petitioners). Disputed question of facts cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Allegations and counter allegations are subject matter of trial. At this stage, averments made in the complaint have to be accepted as true. It is trite law that FIR/complaint can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only in rare cases, where it is demonstrated that continuance of such proceedings will result in abuse of process of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Inherent powers of High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. At initial stages. Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness ofthe allegations made in the complaint. For the foregoing reasons, petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infinctuous. A.K.PATHAK,J. AUGUST 16,2018 r.bararia