2019 (4) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Madhavan, Adv ORDER 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 invest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. 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". 7. On the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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 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] 10. 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 daytoday affairs of the accused....