9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing order as well as the complaints against him, accepting the plea that he had retired from the partnership firm for which a Retirement Deed was already executed on 01.04.2018 - The fact remains that, a public notice regarding retirement by the respondent no.1 from the firm was issued on 09.02.2022 i.e., much after the complaints had been filed and the summoning order had been issued by the trial Court on 05.02.2020. Even the quashing petitions were filed by the respondent no.1 in October 2021. The public notice was issued few days before the High Court decided the quashing petition on 14.03.2022. It is not the case set up by the respondent no.1 that in the Partnership Deed it is mentioned that he was a sleeping partner in the firm. It is well settled that the final judgment of the trial Court will depend on the evidence adduced before it. As there are specific allegations against the respondent no.1 in the complaint and he was admittedly a partner in the partnership firm when the rent deed was executed, he is liable to face prosecution. Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiple cheques Refer to Table mentioned in Para 12 of this judgment (Total 22 cheques) to the appellants herein for discharging the liability for the payment of rent for different months. All the cheques were dishonoured by the bank with a return memo stating the reason therein as Funds Insufficient. Subsequently, the appellant no.1, issued a written notice dated 09.12.2019 to the respondent no.3 under Section 138 of the NI Act, calling upon the respondent no. 3 to pay the amount of the cheques to the appellant herein. 4. After expiry of the period of 15 days, the appellant no.1 filed Criminal Complaints Criminal Complaints No.55/2019, 58/2019, 78/2019, 35/2020, 67/2020 against the respondents no. 1 to 4 under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the NI Act 3 along with Sections 420, 418, 417, 403, 409 and 406 of the IPC4. Following that, other appellants, including appellants no. 2 Appellant No.2 in the present appeal is Rahat Bawri , 3 Appellant No.3 in the present appeal is Payal Bansal and 4 Appellant No.4 in the present appeal is Rahat Bawri (HUF). filed similar Criminal Complaints Criminal Complaints No.53-54/2019, 56/2019, 59-61/2019, 66/2019, 73/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent no.1 to support his case is a self-serving document which ought to be proved during the course of evidence and cannot be accepted as conclusive in quashing proceedings. Further, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there exist allegations concerning the respondent no. 1, indicating his role as partner, being in-charge of and responsible for the affairs of the firm. Hence, the order passed by the High Court quashing the complaints filed against the respondent no.1, deserves to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that though, initially his client was a partner in the firm, however, at the time when the cheques were issued by the respondent no.3, he had already resigned from the partnership firm vide Retirement Deed dated 01.04.2018, thus, making him face the trial, would amount to misuse of the process of law. Consequently, after his retirement from the firm, the respondent no.1 had nothing to do with the affairs of the firm. Hence, the respondent no.1, not being the partner of the firm on the date the issuance of the cheques, cannot be held liable. The Retirement Deed was prepared and was executed on 01.04.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001418 10.07.2019 ₹ 1,45,152/- Rahat Bawri 11. 001421 10.08.2019 ₹ 1,45,152/- Rahat Bawri 12. 001430 25.07.2019 ₹ 94,500/- Rahat Bawri (HUF) 13. 001420 30.07.2019 ₹ 1,38,802/- Payal Bansal 14. 001419 20.07.2019 ₹ 1,45,152/- Riya Bawri 15. 001422 20.08.2019 ₹ 1,45,152/- Riya Bawri 16. 001424 10.09.2019 ₹ 1,45,152/- Rahat Bawri 17. 001423 30.08.2019 ₹ 1,38,802/- Payal Bansal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for payment of rent for the premises taken by the respondent no.3, he had already retired from the firm and a Retirement Deed in that regard was executed on 01.04.2018. 17. It is not in dispute that the premises owned by the appellants was taken on rent by the respondent no.3 firm. Though Partnership Deed has not been placed on record before this Court, however, from para 42 of the impugned order of the High Court it is evident that the partnership firm consisted of three partners, namely, Mark Alexander Davidson and Sachhidanand Kanchan and the third one was not impleaded in any complaints as accused. To discharge the liability towards the payment of rent, various cheques 7 were issued to the appellants. The cheques, when presented to the Bank, were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. 18 The specific allegations made against the accused in the complaint, including the respondent no.1, were that they were incharge of and were responsible for the affairs of the respondent no.3 firm, for conduct of the business affairs of the firm. Thus, they were liable to be proceeded against and punished. The offence has been committed with the consent and connivance of the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
