2022 (4) TMI 923 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - party to the transaction or not - specific stand taken by the petitioners is that they were not the partners of the firm even at the time of borrowal of loan and at the time of issuance of cheques - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the document produced by the petitioners namely Form A issued by the Register of Firms with regard to first accused partnership firm by name 'Sun Coir Mat' consisting of five partners, in which the petitioners were the fourth and fifth partners. While being so, they submitted Form No.V on 12.10.2015 after their resignation from the partnership firm as on 01.04.2014 and the same was recorded and their names were deleted on 12.10.2015 and it was duly in Register of Firm under Form A. In fact after receipt of statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the first petitioner by reply dated 21.09.2017 issued reply notice and categorically stated that they were resigned from their partnership firm as early as on 01.04.2014 and as such they are not liable to pay any debts for the first accused firm. The reply was duly received by the respondent and the respondent also issued re-joinder, dated 09.10.2017. In the case on hand admittedly the petitioners were resigned from the first accused partnership firm as early as on 01.04.2014 and as such they are not liable to be punished for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of proceedings in S.T.C.No.46 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The respondent lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a partnership firm borrowed a loan and issued dishonored cheques. Petitioners were accused as partners in the firm.

2. Petitioners argued they had resigned from the firm before the loan and cheque issuance, thus not liable under Section 138. Cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing specific averments for vicarious liability under Section 141.

3. Respondent contended all accused, including petitioners, were actively involved in the firm's activities, requested the loan, and should face trial to test their claims.

4. Petitioners submitted evidence of their resignation from the firm before the loan and cheques issuance, refuting liability under Section 138. They cited their replies to statutory notices confirming their resignation.

5. Court examined the evidence and arguments, concluding petitioners had resigned from the firm before the events in question, making them not liable under Section 138. The cited Supreme Court judgments on vicarious liability were deemed not applicable in this context.

6. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings in S.T.C.No.46 of 2018 against the petitioners, allowing the Criminal Original Petition in their favor. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.