Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2023 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (8) TMI 1228 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act and related IPC sections.
2. Validity of the Retirement Deed and its impact on the liability of a retired partner.
3. High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act and related IPC sections

The High Court of Meghalaya quashed the criminal complaints filed by the appellants under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the NI Act, along with Sections 420, 418, 417, 403, 409, and 406 of the IPC. These complaints were filed due to the dishonour of cheques issued by the respondents to discharge their liability for rent payments. The High Court held that the complainant failed to produce sufficient evidence to hold the respondents liable for prosecution.

Issue 2: Validity of the Retirement Deed and its impact on the liability of a retired partner

The respondent no.1 argued that he had already resigned from the partnership firm before the cheques were issued, as evidenced by a Retirement Deed dated 01.04.2018. However, the appellants contended that the public notice of his retirement was issued only on 09.02.2022, after the trial court had already summoned the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the Retirement Deed and the public notice should be proved during the trial and cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence in quashing proceedings.

Issue 3: High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the complaints and the summoning order against respondent no.1 based on the Retirement Deed. The Court emphasized that the final judgment should depend on the evidence adduced before the trial court. The Supreme Court stated that powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should only be exercised when there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order quashing the summoning order and the complaints against respondent no.1. The complaints were revived to be tried by the concerned court.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates