Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18123
Decided on: 16.03.2023
For the Petitioner
Sri Naresh Kumar Neemkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1
None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Quashing of complaint against partner/ wife – Vicarious liability – Partnership firm -- Cheque from personal account of husband -- Petitioner is not a signatory to the cheque and the said cheque was issued on personal account of accused No.1/ husband – Though the petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm and amounts were taken from the finance firm, it would not be proper for the complainant to prosecute the petitioner, who is not a signatory to the said cheque – Petitioner is not vicariously liable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act -- Petition allowed.
(Para 3-6)
ORDER
K. SURENDER, J. –
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner-Accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against her in S.T.C N.I.No.5221 of 2022 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Court Complex, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.
3. The respondent No.2/ M/s.Gangothri Finance and Chits represented by its Managing Partner, has filed the present complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2, stating that amounts were taken by them for running their partnership firm. In the course of transaction, both the accused have submitted applications and accused No.1 executed a demand promissory note and cash receipt to the firm for the said amount. Thereafter, the complainant extended Rs.10,00,000/- which was given as loan. Both the petitioner and her husband undertook to repay the said amount. Finally, the accused No.1 issued a cheque for repayment and also executed demand promissory note, cash receipt and loan documents. The said cheque bearing No.717852 for an amount of Rs.19,24,000/- was presented for clearance and was returned un paid.
4. The only ground on which the petitioner is seeking for quashment of proceedings against this petitioner is that the cheque was issued by accused No.1 and she is not a signatory to the said cheque and the said cheque was issued on personal account of accused No.1.
5. As seen from the cheque, the cheque is a personal cheque issued by accused No.1/B.V Ramesh. Though this petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm and amounts were taken from the finance firm, it would not be proper for the complainant to prosecute this petitioner, who is not a signatory to the said cheque. Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, drawer of the cheque would be liable, if the cheque is returned unpaid. In the present transaction even though the petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm being run by accused No.1 and petitioner herein, when the cheque is issued in the personal capacity of the accused No.1, this petitioner is not vicariously liable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Petition allowed.
********