THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5958 of 2004 Date of Order: 08-07-2010 Between: Kamadhen Financiers, rep. by is Managing Partner K.V.Appa Rao ..Petitioner and 1. State rep. by its Public Prosecutor and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5958 of 2004 Oral order: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2004 confirming the order passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.2143 of 2003 in C.C.No.262 of 2003 registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”). The facts, which give rise to filing this criminal petition, areas under: The petitioner as a Managing Partner of Kamadhenu Financiers, Vijayawada filed a compliant against the 4th respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act; initially the same was registered as C.C.No.303 of 2000 in the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and later for administrative convenience it was transferred and re-numbered as C.C.No.262 of 2003 of 2003 in the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada; during the pendency of the said proceedings the petitioner left to USA. The respondents 2 and 3 in collusion with their respective spouses manipulated the records, which were entrusted to them containing blank signatures and fabricated the deed of Addendum to the partnership. While so, the 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.2143 of 2003 in C.C.No.262 of 2003 to remove the name of the petitioner herein and substitute her name to represent the firm. The VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada by order dated 23-01-2004 allowed the said petition. Against which the petitioner carried the matter in revision—Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2004. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by impugned order dated 28-06-2004 dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present Criminal Petition. The Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. LTD. v. MEDCHEL CHEMICALS & PHARMA (P) LTD.[1] categorically held that company can be represented by its authorized person during the course of trial. I see no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2004 dated 28-06-2004 confirming the order passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.2143 of 2003 in C.C.No.262 of 2003. Further, in the absence of any stay granted, by this time the CC had already been disposed of and no cause survives. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 08-07-2010 Murthy [1] (2002) 1 SCC 234