Non-working partner cannot be held liable under Section 138 without specific role in cheque issuance

Bombay HC allowed application to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against non-working partner. Court held that mere partnership status insufficient for liability under Section 141 without specific averments showing responsibility for day-to-day affairs and cheque issuance. Complaint lacked specific allegations against applicant regarding his role in firm's conduct. Partnership deed clearly indicated applicant was not working partner, and no prima facie case established. Continuing proceedings would constitute abuse of process.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Role and liability of a partner in a partnership firm under Section 141 of the NI Act.
3. Specificity of allegations required in the complaint against a partner.
4. Applicability of Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

The applicant sought the quashing of a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, which pertains to the dishonor of a cheque. The complaint alleged that the accused, along with other partners, failed to honor a cheque issued for Rs. 2 lakhs. The applicant contended that the complaint did not make out a prima facie case against them as they did not sign the cheque in question.

2. Role and Liability of a Partner in a Partnership Firm under Section 141 of the NI Act:

The applicant argued that they were merely a sleeping partner and not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the firm, as evidenced by the partnership deed. The deed indicated that the applicant was not a working partner and did not have responsibilities related to the firm's business operations. The court noted that the partnership deed was not registered, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant was responsible for the firm's conduct at the time of the alleged offence.

3. Specificity of Allegations Required in the Complaint Against a Partner:

The court emphasized the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to establish the liability of a partner under Section 141 of the NI Act. The complaint failed to specify how the applicant was responsible for the firm's business or the issuance of the cheque. Citing precedents, the court reiterated that mere designation as a partner does not automatically entail liability unless it is shown that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's conduct at the relevant time.

4. Applicability of Section 482 of the CrPC for Quashing Proceedings:

The court considered the invocation of Section 482 of the CrPC, which allows for the quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Given the absence of specific allegations against the applicant and the lack of evidence indicating their involvement in the firm's business, the court found the continuation of proceedings against the applicant to be an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint and the order of issuance of process against the applicant.

Conclusion:

The application was allowed, and the criminal complaint, along with the order of issuance of process against the applicant, was quashed and set aside. The court concluded that there were no specific and sufficient allegations against the applicant to hold them liable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act. The decision highlighted the importance of detailed and specific allegations in complaints involving partnership firms to establish the liability of individual partners.

---