Former partners cannot face criminal prosecution without specific overt acts or control allegations; civil disputes do not become crimes.

Criminal proceedings against former partners were liable to be quashed where the complaint did not allege that they were in charge of the firm's day-to-day affairs at the relevant time, and the record showed they had ceased to be partners before the alleged acts. Mere past partnership, without specific overt acts linking them to forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust or conspiracy, was insufficient because criminal liability is personal absent a statutory basis for vicarious liability. The complaint also lacked particulars of the alleged forged documents and, on its face, disclosed a civil dispute rather than a criminal offence, making the prosecution an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against partners who had ceased to be partners before the alleged offence, where no overt acts were attributed to them and the complaint disclosed, at best, a civil dispute.

Analysis: The complaint did not contain any averment that the petitioners were in charge of, or responsible for, the day-to-day business of the firm at the time of the alleged acts. The material placed showed that they had ceased to be partners prior to the relevant date and that a new partnership had been constituted thereafter. In criminal law, liability is personal unless a statute creates vicarious liability. Mere past partnership, without specific allegations of participation in the alleged forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust or conspiracy, is insufficient. The complaint also lacked particulars of the documents alleged to have been forged and, on its face, disclosed a civil liability rather than a criminal offence.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioners were liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of court.

---