M/s. Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-09. M/s. Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
"f HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO NN O: 11408 OF 2 o23 ffi Between: 1 M/s. Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. , Office at- Plot No 282, Road No. 78, Near Padmaliya Studio. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500035. represented by its Managing Director B. Nageshwar Rao. 56 years, 2 B. Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Late B. Chennaiah, . age! about Occupalion. Business, R/o. Plot No. 282, Road No. 78, Near Padmalaya - Studio, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500035. ? #i . 1+ ... PETTTTON ER/ACCUSED(S) ^ ANO 1. The State of Telangana, Represented through Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. R/o. 2. P. Devender Rao, S/o. Rqeshwar Rao, Aged 59 years, Occ. Business, Plot No. 1245, Flat No. S-2, Jyothi's Venkatadri Apartments. Road No. 62. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.
C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C. C. N. I. No. 6086 ot 2022 on the file of the ':-ffi Honble Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and quash the proceedings against Petitioners No. 1 and 2/Accused No. '1 and 2 in C. C. N. |. No. 6086 ot 2022 on the file of the Honble Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and pass l. A. NO: 1OF 2023 i { Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances '' ! l #, I stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners in C. C. N. l. No.
6086 ol 2022 on the file of the Honble Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition and pass ffi This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of ,,; li Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri G. nsnok Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri T. Pranav Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,i ij ii # ,] . E*;,. * :! Ei '& tj j rl . + -I ffiq ' -: I i rl * . { :w rn; THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI cRIMINAL PETITION No. 114O8 of 2023 ORDER: In this Criminal petition, the petitioners are seeking quash of the proceedings in C. C. N. 1. No. 6086 of 2022 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the hling of the present criminal petition are that Petitioner No.
I is a company which is engaged in the real estate business, while Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of Petitioner No. 1 company. The allegations in the complaint are that the defacto complainant along with other landlords such as P. Srinivas Reddy and others entered into a registered development agreement-cum-GPA dated ll. O9. 2OI4 vide document No. 4646/2O14 with accused No. 1 i. e. , Petitioner No. 1 Company, which is represented by the accused No. 2/petitioner No. 2 for development of the properties and that under the said development agreement, the accused No. I company agreed to deliver 5O%o of the plotted a-rea to the respondent No. 2 i-e. , defacto complainant and construct the independent luxury villas over the said plots arld deliver the same within 36 months from the datc of obtaining sanction permission from HMDA. It is submitted that accused No- 1 company obtained sanction permission from HMDA under permit No. 17/LO/HMDAl2014, dated 30. 05.
20 14 and formed a layout and 2 TMD,. I Crl. P. No. 11408 of 2023 divided the land into plots, but however, failed to construct villas as agreed. It is submitted that after series of discussions and deliberations, the parties entered into a supplementary agreement dated 26. O5. 2O17, wherein the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,O00/- per square yard in respect of 994 sq. yards, which was agreed to be allotted to the defacto complainant, which comes to Rs. 3,47,90,00O/ - and consequently accused No. 1 issued a cheque bearing No. OO04O3, dated 15. O5. 202O for sum of Rs. 84,O0,000/ , drawn on HDFC bank, Lakdikapul Brarch, Hyderabad, but when the said cheque was presented before hls bank i. e. , ICICI Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad, it was returned on 17. 06. 2020 with an endorsement "Account Blocked". Therefore, the respondent No. 2/defacto complainant issued a legal notice dated 19. 06. 2O2O calling upon the accused to pay the amount of Rs.
84,OO,000/- within 15 days lrom the date of receipt of that notice and the accused also sent a reply notice dated 03. O7. 2O2O and therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of N. l. Act was filed. 3. Seeking quash of the said complaint, the petitioners/ accu sed have raised the following grounds against the C. C. N. I. No. 6086 of 2022. It is submitted that the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 141 of the N. i. Act, have not been lollowed by the complainant ald when the cheque has been returned due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners, the provisions of N. I. Act are not applicable and therefore, the complaint Crl. P. No. 11408 of 2023 fited by the respondent No. 2/defacto complainant against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his above contentions: (i) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited Vs.
Pennar Peterson Securities Limited and Othersl; (ii) D. S. Shridhar Vs. P. John and Another2; (iii) Onkar Nath Goenka Vs. Gujarat Lease Finance Limited3; (iv) Vijay Choudhry Vs. Gyan Chand Jaina. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the complaint and submitted that the cheque was issued in the name of Petitioner No. 1 company and it has been made as a party and Petitioner No. 2 being the Managing Director, is also made party strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 141 of N. l. Act. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Indian Bank Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Otherss; '(zooo) z scc zqs 'crl. c. r,to. :asz ol'zou z 1rsxc1 'vnruuTorTrsoaTzooa 4 MANU/dEl2r7l2008 Crl. P. No,11408 of (ii) Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others Vs. State Gujarat and Another6. 5.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material record, this Court finds that the account of the petitioner was blocked account of default by the petitioner company to the Income Department. The account was blocked on 22. O2. 2O2O, whereas alleged cheque bearing No. 000403, dated 1S. 05. 2O20 was issued petitioner knowing fully-well that his account has been blocked by Income Tax Department. It is submitted that initially an FIR registered under Sections 138 of N. l. Act r/w 42O of lpC. Subsequently, Section 42O of IPC was dropped and proceedings are bcing prosecuted only under Section 138 of N. I. Act. The contentions raised by petitioners are that the complaint is not maintainable due to compliance of Sub-section (1) of Section 141 of N. I. Act and also that return of cheque was due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners and hence the provisions of Section 138 of N. I. Act are not attracted.
However, this Court is of thc opinion that the above legal ground subject to verihcation o[ various facts, which is not possible permissible under Section 482 of Cr. p. C. The contentions raised by can be verihed and truth can be elicired only during the aPetitioners before the trial Court. lzora; s scc sso 1zozo1 z scc;9+ v Crl. P. No. 114O8 of 2023 6. In view of the same, this Court does not hnd any merit in the Crimrnal Petition hled by the petitioners and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that the trial Court shall not be influenced of any of Lhe observations of this Court while disposing of this criminal petition. 8. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand , closed. <1,. ,:,. H::. ;l 3s; { SD/- T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER l) ,I To, Jir :{ 1 The Vlll Nietropolitan tvlagistrate, Hyderabad-. it'l . .. ,,1 -- $ 2 One CC to Sri G.
Ashok Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] ri. al 3 One CC to Sri T. Pranav Rao, Advocate [OPUC] ior the State of Telangana at 4 iwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High-Court Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies swt }N- -3 'r' . i. rill 'it,.. &t ,,i ! i* T : HIGH COURT DATED:0910112024 ffi i;i.. : i, d.. '. i '&# ,l ; :. :f;-'- ! 'j \ l,t. I : :j , ,- ,i ORDER rt&: 'i *,flI:j ra, '. tfr CRLP. No. 11408 of 2023 - '{ &. E.. jI', DISMlSSING THE CR! MINAL PETITION :l ,:: I '. " I I I +\ ;i, #:* \o2t . :r i,l' , l
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.