65-year-old female partner cleared in cheque dishonour case under Section 141 NI Act due to insufficient evidence

Delhi HC quashed summoning order against a 65-year-old female partner in cheque dishonour case under Section 141 NI Act. Court found insufficient evidence to establish petitioner's role in day-to-day affairs of partnership firm. Complainant failed to implead petitioner in previous complaint regarding same Development Agreement, and provided no explanation for subsequent inclusion. Petitioner neither signed the agreement nor was signatory to dishonoured cheques. Mere filing of Income Tax Returns insufficient to establish vicarious liability. Court emphasized requirement to prove actual control and responsibility for relevant transaction period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of summoning order dated 25.07.2019.
2. Allegations against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Petitioner's involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm.
4. Applicability of Section 141 of the NI Act to the petitioner.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Summoning Order Dated 25.07.2019
The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sought to set aside the summoning order dated 25.07.2019 and quash CC No. 344/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

Issue 2: Allegations Against the Petitioner Under Section 138 of the NI Act
The complaint was filed against four accused, including the petitioner, alleging that the accused firm issued cheques towards a liability of Rs. 3,02,00,000/-, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, the payment was not made, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Issue 3: Petitioner's Involvement in the Day-to-Day Affairs of the Partnership Firm
The petitioner argued that she never issued or signed the cheques and was not involved in the transactions. It was submitted that she was not named in a previous complaint regarding the same subject matter, indicating her lack of involvement. The petitioner claimed that her inclusion in the complaint was to exert pressure on other partners.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 141 of the NI Act to the Petitioner
The court examined whether the complaint met the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act, which holds partners vicariously liable if they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. The court noted that the previous complaint did not name the petitioner, and no specific averments were made about her role in the day-to-day affairs of the firm. The court referred to precedents, including Gunmala Sales and Siby Thomas, emphasizing that mere partnership status does not automatically imply involvement in the firm's daily operations.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner, a 65-year-old lady, was not a signatory to the cheques and lacked specific allegations of involvement in the firm's affairs. The reliance on her signing the firm's Income Tax Returns for 2015-16 was insufficient to establish liability under Section 141 of the NI Act. The court concluded that prosecuting the petitioner would be an abuse of process and exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the summoning order dated 25.07.2019 against her.

Disposition:
The petition was allowed, and the summoning order dated 25.07.2019, arising out of CC No. 344/2019, qua the petitioner, was quashed. Pending applications were also disposed of. The judgment was to be uploaded on the court's website and a copy sent to the concerned trial court for compliance.

---