S.482,Cr.P.C = & 141of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881= cheques for Rs.25,00,000/ each and one cheque for Rs.30,00,000/ were drawn on different dates by the authorised signatory, i.e. , M.D. of M/s Dhruti Infra Projects Limited, which were returned dishonored, on presentation by the appellant, with the remark Payment stopped by Drawer . Thereafter, the appellant issued a legal notice on 04.08.2016 to (i) M/s Dhruti Infra Projects Limited (accused no.1);(ii) M.D.of M/s Dhruti Infra Projects Limited (accused no. 2); (iii) Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(asDirectors). Apex court held that we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in allowing the quashing petitions by invoking its power under S.482 Cr.P.C.In a case pertaining to an offence under S. 138 and S. 141 of the Act, the law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company’s business at the time when the offence was committed = A perusal of the record in the present case indicates that the appellant has specifically averred in his complaint that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were actively participating in the day to day affairs of the accused no.1 company. Further, the accused nos. 2 to 4 (including the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) are alleged to be from the same family and running the accused no.1 company together. The complaint also specificies that all the accused, in active connivance, mischievously and intentionally issued the cheques in favor of the appellant and later issued instructions to the Bank to Stop Payment .No evidence of unimpeachable quality has been brought on record by the respondent nos.1 and 2 to indicate that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.

1
��IN�THE�SUPREME�COURT�OF�INDIA
CRIMINAL�APPELLATE�JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL�APPEAL�Nos.403�405��OF�2019
(Arising�out�of�SLP(Crl.)�Nos.9626�28�of�2017)
A.R.�RADHA�KRISHNA� ��������APPELLANT�
V ERSUS
DASARI�DEEPTHI�&�ORS.� ���RESPONDENTS �
O��R��D��E��R

  1. Leave�granted.
  2. These�appeals,�by�special�leave,�are�directed�against�the�order
    dated � 22.09.2017 � passed � by � the � High � Court � of � Judicature � at
    Hyderabad � for � the � State � of � Telangana � and � the � State � of � Andhra
    Pradesh � in � Criminal � Petition � Nos. � 6508, � 6530 � & � 6531 � of � 2017,
    whereby � the � High � Court � allowed � the � Criminal � Petitions � filed � by
    respondent�nos.�1�and�2�and�set�aside�the�cognizance�order�passed
    by�the�trial�court.��
  3. The � case � of � the � prosecution � in � brief � is � that �the � appellant � had
    entered � into � an � investment � agreement � with � M/s � Dhruti � Infra
    Projects � Limited � (accused � no.1) � on � 01.12.2013 � on � the � basis � of
    representation � of � respondent � nos. � 1 � and � 2 � herein, � who � were � the
    Directors � of � the � said � Company. � The � appellant � invested � a � total

2
amount � of � Rs.2,11,50,000/� � in � the � said � project. � According � to � the
appellant, � as � on � 31.03.2016, � a � total � amount � of � Rs.1,81,50,000/�
was � left � to � be � repaid � to � him � along � with � applicable � interest � on � it.
Thereafter, � upon � several � representations � by � the � appellant, � M/s
Dhruti�Infra�Projects�Limited�agreed�to�repay�the�amount � via � issue
of � seven � cheques � in � favour � of � the � appellant. � � Six � cheques � for
Rs.25,00,000/� � each � and � one � cheque � for � Rs.30,00,000/� � were
drawn � on � different � dates � by � the � authorised � signatory, � i.e. , � M.D. � of
M/s�Dhruti�Infra�Projects�Limited,�which�were�returned�dishonored,
on � presentation � by � the � appellant, � with � the � remark � � Payment
stopped�by�Drawer �.

  1. Thereafter, � the � appellant � issued � a � legal � notice � on � 04.08.2016
    to�(i)�M/s�Dhruti�Infra�Projects�Limited�(accused�no.�1);�(ii)�M.D.�of
    M/s � Dhruti � Infra �Projects � Limited � (accused � no. � 2); � (iii) � Respondent
    No.�1�and�Respondent�No.�2�(as�Directors).
  2. Consequently, � proceedings � were � initiated � by � the � appellant
    under�Sections�138�&�141�of�the�Negotiable�Instruments�Act,�1881
    (hereinafter � referred � to � as � `the � Act�). � � During � the � pendency � of � the
    said � complaint, � the � respondent � nos. � 1 � and � 2 � made � an � application
    before�the�High�Court�for�the�quashing�of�the�proceedings�initiated
    against � them. � The � High � Court, � as � mentioned � above, � allowed � the

3
Criminal � Petitions � filed � by � respondent � nos. � 1 � and � 2 � and � quashed
the � proceedings � against � them. � Being � aggrieved, � the � appellant � has
approached�this�Court�through�the�instant�appeals.

  1. Learned � counsel � for � the � appellant, � Mr. � Y. � Rajagopala � Rao
    vehemently � contended � that � the � High � Court � was � not � justified � in
    allowing�the�quashing�petitions�by�invoking�its�power�under�Section
    482 � Cr.P.C. � despite � the � fact � that � a � prima � facie � case � was � made � out
    against � respondent � nos. � 1 � and � 2 � in � the � complaint � filed � by � the
    appellant. � He � contended � that � the � trial � court, � on � the � basis � of � the
    material�on�record,�took�cognizance�of�the�case�against�respondent
    nos. � 1 � and � 2 � under � Sections � 138 � and � 141 � of � the � Act. � Learned
    counsel�for�the�appellant�further�submitted�that�all�the�accused,�in
    active � connivance, � mischievously � and � intentionally � issued � the
    cheques � in � favor � of � the � appellant � and � later � issued � instructions � to
    the�Bank�to�� Stop�Payment �.
  2. On � the � other � hand, � learned � counsel � for � the � respondents, � Mr.
    Kaushal�Yadav�submitted�that�the�answering�respondents�are�only
    non�executory�Directors�of�the�company,�neither�playing�any�role�in
    the � conduct � of � day�to�day � business � of � the � company � nor � being � in
    charge � of � the � affairs � of � the � company. � Further, � he � also � contended
    that�merely�by�virtue�of�being�a�Director�in�a�company,�one�cannot

4
be�deemed�to�be�in�charge�of,�or�responsible�to,�the�company�for�the
conduct�of�its�business.��

  1. In � any � case, � the � learned � counsel � for � the � respondents � further
    submitted � that � his � clients � are � ready � to � pay � the � balance � amount � of
    Rs.70,00,000/� � to � the � appellant � within � a � period � of � six � months.
    However, � learned � counsel � for � the � appellant � did � not � agree � to � the
    same.
  2. Having � heard � learned � counsel � for � the � parties � and � carefully
    scrutinizing � the � record, � we � are � of � the � considered � opinion � that � the
    High � Court � was � not � justified � in � allowing � the � quashing � petitions � by
    invoking �its�power �under �S.482,�Cr.P.C.�In�a�case�pertaining �to �an
    offence � under � S. � 138 � and � S. � 141 � of � the � Act, � the � law � requires � that
    the � complaint � must � contain � a � specific � averment � that � the � Director
    was�in�charge�of,�and�responsible�for,�the�conduct�of�the�company�s
    business � at � the � time � when � the � offence � was � committed. � The � High
    Court,�in�deciding�a�quashing�petition�under�S.�482,�Cr.P.C.,�must
    consider �whether �the �averment� made�in �the �complaint� is� sufficient
    or � if � some � unimpeachable � evidence � has � been � brought � on � record
    which � leads � to � the � conclusion � that � the � Director � could � never � have
    been�in�charge�of�and�responsible�for�the�conduct�of�the�business�of
    the�company�at�the�relevant�time.�While�the�role�of�a�Director�in�a

5
company�is�ultimately�a�question�of�fact,�and�no�fixed�formula�can
be�fixed�for�the�same,�the�High�Court�must�exercise�its�power�under
S. � 482, � Cr.P.C. � when � it � is � convinced, � from � the � material � on � record,
that � allowing � the � proceedings � to � continue � would � be � an � abuse � of
process � of � the � Court. � [ See � Gunamala � Sales � Private � Limited � v.
Anu�Mehta�and�Ors.,� (2015)�1�SCC�103 ]

  1. A � perusal� of � the �record � in � the� present � case� indicates � that � the
    appellant � has � specifically � averred � in � his � complaint � that � the
    respondent � nos. � 1 � and � 2 � were � actively � participating � in � the � day�to�
    day � affairs � of � the � accused � no.1 � � � company. � Further, � the � accused
    nos. � 2 � to � 4 � (including � the � respondent � nos. � 1 � and � 2 � herein) � are
    alleged�to�be�from�the�same�family�and�running�the�accused�no.1��
    company � together. � The � complaint � also � specificies � that � all � the
    accused, � in � active � connivance, � mischievously � and � intentionally
    issued � the � cheques � in � favor � of � the � appellant � and � later � issued
    instructions � to � the � Bank � to � � Stop � Payment �. � No � evidence � of
    unimpeachable � quality � has � been � brought � on � record � by � the
    respondent�nos.�1�and�2�to�indicate�that�allowing�the�proceedings�to
    continue�would�be�an�abuse�of�process�of�the�court.�
  2. In � the � above � view � of � the � matter, � the � instant � appeals � are
    allowed � and � the � impugned � order � dated � 22.09.2017, � passed � by � the

6
High � Court � of � Judicature � at � Hyderabad � for � the � State � of � Telangana
and � the � State � of � Andhra � Pradesh � in � Criminal � Petition � Nos.6508,
6530 � & � 6531 � of � 2017, � is � set � aside � and � that � of � the � trial � court � is
restored.

  1. Before�parting�with�the�matter,�we�make�it�clear�that�we�have
    not�expressed�any�opinion�on�the�merits�of�the�case�pending�before
    the � trial � court. � Needless � to � say, � the � trial � court � will � adjudicate � the
    matter � on � its � own � merits � uninfluenced � by � any � of � the � observations
    made�herein.
  2. However,�keeping�in�view�the�nature�of�the�case,�we�direct�the
    trial � court � to � expedite � the � trial � and � dispose � of � the � same � in
    accordance�with�law.�
    � …………………….J.
    (N.V.RAMANA)
    ������
    � ……………………J.
    �(MOHAN�M.SHANTANAGOUDAR)
    �……………………J.
    �����(INDIRA�BANERJEE )
    N EW �D ELHI ;
    F EBRUARY �28,�2019.

7
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9626-9628/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2017
in CRLP No.6508, 6530 & 6531 of 2017 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh)
A.R. RADHA KRISHNA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DASARI DEEPTHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 28-02-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Y.Raja Gopala Rao, AOR
Mr.B.Mohan, Adv.
Ms.Y.Vismai Rao, Adv.
Mr.K.Sharat Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Kaushal Yadav, AOR
Ms.Sunita Yadav, Adv.
Mr.Nand Lal Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Ms.Ankita Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms.Shweta Yadav, Adv.
Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
Ms.Bina Madhavan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
K eeping in view the nature of the case, we direct the
trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)

8