Quashing of Section 138 complaint denied where partner liability, cheque misuse, and bank merger defences required trial evidence.

Specific averments in a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are sufficient at the quashing stage to proceed against a partner where the pleadings allege participation in the firm's affairs, and the question of actual liability is left to trial. Defences that the cheques were issued for another purpose and later misused involve disputed facts and cannot be examined in Section 482 CrPC proceedings as a mini trial. A further plea that the cheques became invalid after merger of the drawer bank could not be accepted on the basis of annexures filed with the petition, because such materials are not proof and the issue requires evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the summoning order could be quashed against a partner on the ground that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the firm; (ii) whether the defence that the cheques were issued for a different purpose and were misused could be accepted at the quashing stage; (iii) whether the plea that the cheques had become invalid after merger of the drawer bank could be decided on the basis of annexures filed with the petition.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the summoning order could be quashed against a partner on the ground that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the firm.

Analysis: The partnership deed showed that the partner was a working partner with an equal profit and loss share and received remuneration. The complaint also contained specific averments that the partners were managing the affairs of the firm and looking after its day-to-day business. Such pleadings satisfied the requirement of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the threshold, and the question of actual liability was one for trial.

Conclusion: The plea for quashing on this ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence that the cheques were issued for a different purpose and were misused could be accepted at the quashing stage.

Analysis: The petitioners set up a defence contrary to the complainant's case regarding the purpose and use of the cheques. That dispute involved disputed facts and required evidence. Such a defence could not be evaluated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as that would amount to conducting a mini trial.

Conclusion: The defence of misuse of cheques was held to be a matter for trial.

Issue (iii): Whether the plea that the cheques had become invalid after merger of the drawer bank could be decided on the basis of annexures filed with the petition.

Analysis: The materials relied upon by the petitioners were annexures to the quashing petition and were not proof of the factual assertions contained in them. The Court declined to treat them as evidence at the stage of Section 482 jurisdiction, and held that the validity of the cheques and the effect of bank merger required proof in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The plea regarding invalidity of the cheques was not accepted at the quashing stage.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the complaint or summoning order, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a petition for quashing, specific averments under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are sufficient to proceed against a partner, while disputed defences and unproved annexures cannot be evaluated as evidence and must be left to trial.

---