IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11782 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Energy Leader Batteries India Ltd. Flat No.303, Lake Melody, No. 6-3-1099/14 & 15, Near Hotel Katriya, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Represented by its Managing Director Sri P. Srinivas Rao & Anr. … Petitioners-A1 & A2 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G. Vijaya Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s.Indus Law Firm The Court made the following order : (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11782 OF 2010 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No. 252 of 2009 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the criminal petition and to pass such other suitable orders, as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cheques were not issued in connection with enforceable liability and he further submitted that the said cheques were issued by them for the supply of material and the said material are to be erected after the completion of civil work. When there was delay in completion of civil work, meanwhile the material was brought to the site concerned. In the meanwhile they deposited the same even though it was intimated the same in the letter. But they specifically demanded Demand Draft or another cheque. So the learned counsel submitted that the cheques are not in connection with the enforceable liability. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent No.2 submitted that as per the agreement he has already supplied the material. Hence, he has to pay the money as per the agreement entered into between the parties. Hence, after due intimation he deposited the cheque and the same is relevant as per the endorsement “insufficient funds”. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State- Respondent No. and the learned counsel representing Respondent No.2 and perused the records. 5. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the above said facts are to be tried by the learned Magistrate and the petitioner is at liberty to rely on the documents which he has filed before this Court and the said documents and the contentions are subject to the cross-examination of the petitioners herein. On perusal of the record, prima facie, this Court is not inclined either to stay the proceedings or quash the proceedings except dispensing with the presence of the petitioner No.2 before the trial court. Hence, the presence of the petitioner No.2 before the trial court is dispensed with and all further proceedings may go on. 6. In view of the observation made in the order, the learned Magistrate is directed to permit the petitioners to be represented through their counsel. However, the petitioner No.2 shall attend the concerned court as and when the learned Magistrate specifically directs them to appear before the trial court. 7. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15-02-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11782 OF 2010 Circulation No. 98 Date: 15-02-2011 Court Master : I s L