Cheque dishonour complaints need not send separate notices to each responsible partner; disputed debt issues are for trial, not quashing.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint need not be quashed for want of separate notices to each partner alleged to be in charge of the firm's business, because notice under Section 138(b) is required only to the drawer of the cheque and the complaint's allegations of responsibility may suffice to proceed. Disputed questions on whether a legally enforceable debt or liability exists, including issues relating to part-payments and the presumption under Section 139, are matters for evidence and cannot ordinarily be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in the absence of individual notices to the partners alleged to be in charge of and responsible for the firm's business; (ii) Whether the contention that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability could be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in the absence of individual notices to the partners alleged to be in charge of and responsible for the firm's business.

Analysis: The liability of persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of a firm is fastened by Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the offence under Section 138 is committed by the firm. The notice contemplated by Section 138(b) is required to be issued to the drawer of the cheque, and the statute does not require separate notices to each partner or other person alleged to be responsible for the firm's business before launching the complaint. The allegations in the complaint that the partners were in charge and actively involved in the business were sufficient to permit the matter to proceed to trial.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and no individual notice to each partner was necessary; the contention was rejected against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the contention that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability could be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The existence of a legally enforceable debt, the effect of alleged part-payments, and the operation of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were treated as matters requiring evidence. Such disputed factual questions could not be determined in a petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The plea based on absence of legally enforceable debt could not be accepted at the quashing stage and was rejected against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were permitted to continue, as the objections raised by the petitioners required trial and did not justify quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, individual notice is not required to every partner alleged to be in charge of the firm's business, and disputed questions such as the existence of debt or liability cannot ordinarily be decided in quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---