Quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings denied where partner responsibility under the Negotiable Instruments Act was prima facie disclosed.

In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partner who is not a signatory to the cheque can still face proceedings if the complaint and accompanying material prima facie indicate that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business. The Court noted that the petitioners were admitted partners and that the reconstitution deed described business roles, including operation of bank accounts and borrowing powers. At the quashing stage, it held that actual control and responsibility during the relevant period were matters for trial, not for interference under Section 482 CrPC, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against partners of a firm who were not signatories to the cheques could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint alleged business dealings with the firm, issuance of cheques towards liability, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and non-payment after statutory notice. The petitioners relied on the principle that vicarious liability for an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed and must rest on the statutory requirements of Section 141. The material placed before the Court showed that the petitioners were admitted partners of the firm and that the deed of reconstitution described their roles in the business, including operation of bank accounts and borrowing powers. At the stage of quashing, the Court found that the petitioners had not established circumstances warranting interference under Section 482, and the question whether they were actually in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business during the relevant period was a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, quashing is not justified where the complaint and accompanying material disclose a prima facie basis for attributing responsibility to the accused partners, because the question of actual control and responsibility is ordinarily one for trial rather than inherent jurisdiction.

---