THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7519 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of further proceedings in C.C.No.577 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore against the petitiolenr-A3. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner-A3 and two others alleging offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. A1 is a company represented by A2-Executive Director. A3 is stated to be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of A1 company. According to the complainant, A2 and A3, on behalf of A1 company, were having dealings with the complainant in the matter of purchase and sale of shares for a period of about five years upto March, 2006 and that A1 became indebted to the complainant in a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. It is further alleged that A2 and A3 wrote a letter to the complainant on 24.04.2006, intimating their willingness to pay the amount in instalments and thereafter paid Rs.33,00,000/- and that on 30.05.2006, A2 issued cheque on behalf of A1 on Indus India Bank Limited, Chennai for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and another cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- towards part payment of the balance due. The complainant alleges that when the cheque bearing No.639480 was presented to Canara bank, Nellore for collection on 10.08.2006, it was returned on 11.08.2006 with an endorsement that funds are insufficient in the account. Thereafter, complainant intimated the same to the accused and it is alleged that A2 and A3 requested the complainant to present the cheque again and when the complainant re-presented the cheque at Canara bank, the same was again returned on 01.12.2006 with an endorsement that the funds are insufficient. Thereafter, after issuing a legal notice, the complaint was filed. In the complaint, it is specifically alleged that A2 and A3 are in- charge and responsible for the affairs of the company. 4. Admittedly, A3 is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company. Specific allegation has been made in the complaint to the effect that the petitioner-A3 is also in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the company. It is further alleged that A3 along with A2 wrote a letter to the complainant intimating their willingness to pay the amount due and when the complainant approached A3, after the cheque was dishonoured at the first instance, A3 requested the complainant to again present the cheque to the bank. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial. The fact, however, remains that going by the allegations in the complaint, at the present stage, it is suffice to state that specific allegations have been made to the effect that A3 was also equally in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the company and therefore he addressed the letter to the complainant expressing willingness to pay the amount. It cannot therefore be said that simply because A3 has not signed the cheque, he cannot be held liable or responsible for the consequences of dishonour of the cheque issued by A2 on behalf of A1 company. The cheque was issued by the company and it was signed by A2 on behalf of the company, however, in pursuance of the letter addressed by A3 on 24.02.2006, intimating willingness to pay the amount due by way of instalments. It is further stated that in pursuance of the said letter, Rs.33,00,000/- were paid and towards part payment of the balance amount due, the cheques were issued. Under those circumstances, it is considered that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A3 invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th November, 2011. Tsy