HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4531 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3 /A1 to A3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No. 382 of 2009 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. A-1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. A-2 is stated to be Managing Director of A-1. A-3 is stated to be Executive Director of A-1 and is an authorized person and also responsible for the day-to-day activities of the company. In so far as A-1 is concerned, it is contended in the petition that originally the dishonoured cheque was issued by A3 as authorized person of Sahsra Properties Private Limited and on the company’s account. But, A1 is described as Sahsra Estates India Private Limited. The Petitioners’ counsel now fairly submits that only name of the company is changed from Sahsra Properties Private Limited to Sahsra Estates India Private Limited without changing registration or incorporation with the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, it is immaterial with what name a person whether it be a physical person or a juristic person is described. Legal entity of the company remains one and the same irrespective of change of its name. Therefore, the criminal case is not liable to be quashed in so far as A-1 company is concerned as well as A-3, who is the authorized signatory and who in fact singed the cheque which was later dishonoured. 2. In so far as A-2 is concerned, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that except describing A-2 as Managing Director of A-1, there is no other allegation in the complaint as contemplated under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-2 was neither Managing Director nor Director of Sahsra Properties Private Limited and that after reconstitution of the company and changing its name as Sahsra Estates India Private Limited, A2 came into the Board of Directors as Managing Director. It is further contended that A- 2 was not at all in the Board of Sahsra Properties Private Limited on the date when the dishobnoured cheque was drawn by A-3 in favour of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. 3. With regard to the same transaction, the 2nd respondent filed another complaint in the lower court alleging offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 IPC and it was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Malkajgiri police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was registered as case in crime No. 406 of 2008 by the Malkajgiri police. In that complaint, which became First Information Report in Crime No. 406 of 2008, it was stated that originally, in the old named company R.Vamshidhar was the Director and after the company changed its name, A2 and A3, who are father and wife of R.Vamshidhar became Directors in the newly named company after reconstitution of its Board. Having regard to the said allegations, it is contended that when A2 was not in the Board of Directors muchless as Managing Director on the date of issue of the cheque, his prosecution by way of the present criminal case is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 4. Having regard to the above factual situation and also having regard to the specific averments made in the complaint in CC No. 382 of 2009 to the effect that it was A-3, who was responsible for the day-to-day activities of the company, I am of the opinion that A2 is entitled for relief in this petition. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing the Proceedings in CC No. 382 of 2009 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad in so far as the 2nd petitioner/A2 is concerned; and the criminal petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 and 3 /A1 and A3 are concerned. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 11-11-2010 Mjl/*