HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7267 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.3289 of 2007 in C.C.No.193 of 1999, whereby the learned Magistrate permitted the complainant to add Accused No.2 as representative of Accused No.1. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in C.C.No.193 of 1999. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cables and allied products and A.1 company is one of its customers. A.2 and A.3 are the Chairman and Whole-Time Director and Director of A.1 company respectively. In the regular course of business, the complainant has supplied goods worth Rs.39,16,141/- to A.1 company. Though some amounts were paid, a sum of Rs.21,18,139/- is still due by A.1 company. In that regard, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.265443 dated 15.05.1998 for Rs.5 lakhs drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, University Branch, Pune, in favour of the complainant. On presentation of the cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement “Exceeds Arrangements” vide cheque return memo dated 06.11.1998. Thereupon, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 18.11.1998 to the accused demanding the accused to pay the amount in lieu of dishonoured cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Having received the notice, the accused got issued a reply with false and untenable allegations. Hence, the complainant filed C.C.No.193 of 1999 on the file of the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. i) After service of notice, the accused have put in their appearance and are contesting the matter. During the course of trial, the 3rd accused died, and hence, the case against him got abated. After completion of trial and after examination of A.2 under section 313 Cr.P.C., A.2 filed Crl.M.P.No.4829 of 2005 seeking to conduct examination of A.1 company and also filed Crl.M.P.No.4830 of 2005 seeking a direction to A.1 company to appoint an Authorised Officer or Representative to represent it in the case, and both the petitions were allowed on 11.10.2006 with a direction to the complainant to take steps to show the Authorised Officer or representative of A.1 company to represent it in the case. Accordingly, the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.3289 of 2007 seeking permission to add A.2 as representative of A.1 company. Having considered the submissions of both the counsel, the court below allowed the said application by an order dated 23.09.2008. The same is under challenge in this Criminal Petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The description of A.1 company in the cause title of the complaint is shown as under: “M/s. Indocan Engineering Systems Ltd., Rahul Chambers, Bombay-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune-34, a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act,1956.” It is apparent that for obvious reasons the cause title of the complaint does not show as to who is representing A.1 company. Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, 1st respondent herein, that A.2 is the Chairman and Whole-Time Director of A.1 company and the same is mentioned at Para 2 of the complaint itself. May be it is true, but the fact remains that the Company alone is shown as A.1 in the cause title of the complaint, and as per the settled principles of law, the complaint is not maintainable against a juristic person and the Company shall invariably be represented by some individual. In fact, this fact came to light by virtue of the orders dated 11.10.2006 passed by the court below in Crl.M.P.Nos.4829 and 4830 of 2005 filed by A.1, and in continuation thereof, Crl.M.P.No.3289 of 2007 to add A.2 as representative of A.1 company has been filed. 6. As stated supra, in the cause title of the complaint itself A.2 is shown as the Chairman cum Whole-Time Director of A.1 company and the signatory of the cheque in question is A.2. From the record, it appears that A.2 has been attending the court right from the date of filing of the complaint. No doubt, there is a lacuna in the complaint, but it cannot be said that the lacuna cannot be rectified at a later stage. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner- A.2, tried to impress upon this Court stating that the Managing Director of A.1 company is no more and the Bombay High Court has wound up A.1 company in a Company Petition, in my considered view, adding of A.2 as representative of A.1 company would not cause any prejudice to A.2. This should have happened at the time of filing of the complaint, but it is happening at the stage i.e. after examination of A.2 under section 313 Cr.P.C. Except stating that Managing Director of A.1 company is no more, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.2 did not say anything as to the prejudice which is going to be caused to A.2 on account of his being brought on record as representative of A.1 company. It is not as though A.2 is brought on record for the first time, as stated supra, he was already shown as A.2 in the complaint in his individual capacity as he is the signatory of the cheque. 7. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.3289 of 2007 in C.C.No.193 of 1999 is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 16th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7267 of 2008 (Dismissed) Date:16-06-2010 CBS