THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8435 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ﬁled by the petitioners, A-2, A-4 and A-5, seeking to quash the proceedings/charge sheet against them in C.C. No.790 of 2006 on the file of learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Marredpally, Secunderabad for the oﬀences under Sections 120-B, 382, 406, 420, 465, 468, 504 and 506 IPC. 2. The case of the complainant – respondent No.1, M/s. VNR Films, is that the petitioners herein (A-2, A-4 and A-5) and A-3 – Y. Vijayakumar are family members and all of them are partners of A-1 – M/s. Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Chit Fund and Finance Company. A-1 and A-3 are not parties to this petition. The complainant had several chit transactions with A-1 before 1998 and during that time he gave several cheques to all the accused. But, after completion of the chits in 1998, when the complainant requested the accused to return his blank cheques, they did not return the same stating that they were misplaced by them and in future, if they found the same they will return it but will not misuse. However, taking advantage of the same, A-3 in collusion with the other accused, with dishonest and fraudulent intention deliberately fabricated and forged the cheques of the complainant for their wrongful gain and issued a legal notice dated 21-12-2005 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and thus all the accused cheated it. Hence, it was constrained to ﬁle the present complaint against all the accused including the petitioners herein, who are directors of A-1 ﬁnance company, for the aforesaid offences. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were some money transactions between A-3 – Y. Vijayakumar, who is not a party to this petition, and the complainant. That A-3 has alleged to have issued a legal notice to the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and as a counterblast to the said case, complainant ﬁled the present case against the petitioners and other accused with all false allegations. He further submits that the petitioners herein are A-2, A-4 and A-5 and they are nothing to do with the disputes between A-3 and the complainant, but the complainant roped the petitioners herein also with a mala ﬁde intention to pressurize A-3 to withdraw the case ﬁled against it (complainant), as such, the impugned proceedings may be quashed against the petitioners herein. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on a decision of the A p e x Court in MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. RAJIV DUBEY[1]. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – complainant submits that there are chit transactions between the complainant and the accused and for those transactions complainant had given promissory notes, blank cheques and other blank papers to all the accused, who include the petitioners herein being partners of A-1, Finance Company, and those chit transactions between them completed in 1998 itself and when the complainant requested them to return his blank cheques etc., they informed that they were misplaced and in future, if they found the same they will return it but will not misuse. He further contends that taking advantage of possessing blank cheques of the complainant, A-3 in collusion with the other accused, with dishonest and fraudulent intention deliberately fabricated and forged the cheques of the complainant for their wrongful gain and issued a legal notice dated 21-12-2005 under Section 138 of NI Act claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and thus all the accused cheated it, as such, complainant ﬁled the present complaint against all the accused, who include the petitioners herein being partners of A-1 finance company. The complainant gave reply also to the notice of A-3. He also submits that in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to see as to whether the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences are fulﬁlled or not and cannot use its powers except in exceptional cases, and in support of its contention, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in MAHESH CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[2]. 6. A perusal of the material on record reveals serious allegations against A-1 and A-3 along with the petitioners herein which require to be adjudicated only after trial. It also reveals that the trial Court has taken cognizance of the case and after ﬁling this petition in December 2008, this Court had granted only limited interim stay and the same was expired in January, 2009 itself and now it is the end of 2011. A perusal of the decision in Mahindra & Mahindra’s Case (Supra 1), on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reveals that the facts therein are diﬀerent to the facts on hand, as such, the maxim laid down in that case cannot be applied directly to the present case. 7. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a ﬁt case to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioners by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J November 17, 2011. PV [1] (2009) 1 SCC 706 [2] (2009) 4 SCC 439