2012 (9) TMI 1228 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes Criminal Complaint in bounced cheque case, emphasizes proper impleading of parties

The court quashed a Criminal Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, ruling that the applicant, a partner in a firm, could not ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the quashing of a Criminal Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act based on the liability of a partner in a firm for a bounced cheque.Summary:Issue 1: Liability of the applicant as a partner of the firmThe complaint alleged that the accused applicant, a partner in V.I.P. Financiers Firm, received a loan and issued a bounced cheque. The applicant argued that the firm should be the principal accused, not him. The court referred to Section 138 and 141 of the Act, stating that for maintaining prosecution, the company must be accused. As the firm was not impleaded, the complaint against the applicant was deemed invalid.Issue 2: Compliance with legal requirementsThe court analyzed the legal provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act, emphasizing that criminal liability for a bounced cheque extends to individuals in charge of the company's business at the time of the offence. The court cited precedents to highlight the necessity of specific averments in the complaint regarding the accused's role in the company at the time of the offence. In this case, as the applicant's responsibility for the firm's conduct was not established, the complaint was considered legally deficient.Conclusion:Based on the above analysis, the court allowed the petition and quashed the Criminal Complaint Case, ruling that the proceedings, including the summoning order, were an abuse of the court process. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly impleading parties and meeting legal requirements in maintaining criminal prosecutions under the Negotiable Instrument Act.