HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.Nos. 6684 of 2009 and 6920 of 2009 DATED: 03.12.2011 Crl.P. No. 6684 of 2009: Between: A. Suibrahmanian .. Petitioner/A6 And 1. The State of A.P. 2. V. Krishna murthy .. Respondents Crl.P. No. 6920 of 2009 Between: S.P.G. Sangeetha .. Petitioner/A5 And 1. The State of A.P. 2. V. Krishna murthy .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- Inasmuch as a common question of fact is involved in these two Criminal Petitions, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order. While Crl.P. No. 6684 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner-A6, and Crl.P. No. 6920 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner-A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Calendar Case No. 251 of 2009 on the file of the Court of V Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Guntur on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against both of them. In both the cases, the 2nd respondent is the complainant. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: A1 is a firm namely M/s.K.R.A. Textiles for which A2 and A3 in the case are partners and A4 is the son of A2 and A3 and A5 is the wife of A4 and A6 is a close relative of A2 and A3 and A2 to A6 have been looking after the business of the A1 – firm being members of a joint family. The complainant was supplying cotton to A1 – firm. A1 fell due certain amounts to him. In that connection, A2 and A4 entered a memorandum of understanding with the complainant on 03.11.2008 and A2 also issued a cheque for Rs.6.00 crores in favour of the complainant payable at Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Coimbatore. In fact, it was issued with the concerted action of A2 to A6. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection through Andhra Bank, Guntur, the same was dishonoured on the ground there were insufficient funds in the corresponding account of the firm.. Consequently, the complainant issued registered notice dated 29.12.2008 to A1 to A6 to comply with the requirement, but they failed to do so and thereby they committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint was filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for A5 and A6 that even as per the averments made in the complaint, neither A5 nor A6 were the partners of the firm and there is only a bald statement that the cheques were issued by the concerted act of A2 to A6 in the case and there is also no basis that they actually participated in the business of the firm, and hence the petitions are to be allowed. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that A2 to A6 actually participated in the business of the company and A6 also signed the Memorandum of Understanding, and therefore it cannot be said that they have nothing to do with the issuance of the cheque. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings in the said calendar case. In order to prosecute A5 and A6 for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there should be clear material to the effect that they actually participated in the business of the firm and they were also responsible for the issuance of the cheque. Emphatically, even as per the complainant, only A1 and A2 happened to be the partners of the company and A2 issued the cheque in question. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, A6 only signed therein as a witness which does not mean that he was a partner or an employee of the partnership firm. There is only some bald statement to the effect that A5 and A6 along with A2 to A4 involved in the business of the firm and by the concerted action of A2 to A6 the cheque was issued which is not supported by any record for which an adverse inference has to be drawn prima facie. It may be that A5 and A6 were implicated in the case with some ulterior motives without any basis. When there is no concrete material prima facie which can be taken into consideration to prosecute them, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, otherwise it amounts ot abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, these two Criminal Petitions are allowed. However, the trial Court while disposing of the Calendar Case should not be influenced by any of the observations made above so far as A1 to A4 are concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 03.12.2011 bcj