Cheque dishonour prosecution against partners survived quashing where pleadings showed firm involvement and statutory notice was timely.

Quashing was declined because inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS is to be used sparingly, and the complaint contained specific averments showing the petitioners' involvement in the transaction with no jurisdictional or legal infirmity in the revisional order. In the cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques issued on behalf of the firm: the demand notice was timely in light of the COVID-19 limitation extension, and the pleadings sufficiently alleged that the petitioners were partners responsible for the firm's business. Liability was confined to the firm-related cheques, not cheques issued in a personal capacity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and revisional order were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners, including the validity of the demand notice and the petitioners' vicarious liability as partners of the firm.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint and revisional order were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Analysis: The power to quash is to be exercised sparingly and only where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process or where no prima facie offence is disclosed. On the material placed, the complaint contained specific averments regarding the petitioners' involvement in the transaction and the revisional court had already found a prima facie case for the cheque(s) issued on behalf of the firm. No jurisdictional or legal infirmity was shown in the revisional order.

Conclusion: The request to quash the complaint and the revisional order was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners, including the validity of the demand notice and the petitioners' vicarious liability as partners of the firm

Analysis: The cheques arose out of the same commercial transaction relating to possession of the property, and the demand notice was within time when the limitation extension during the COVID-19 period was applied. For vicarious liability under Section 141, specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business are required, but it is not necessary to reproduce statutory wording verbatim. The complaint specifically stated that the petitioners were partners and participated in the transaction from its inception, which was sufficient at the prima facie stage. The revisional court correctly confined liability to the cheques issued on behalf of the firm and not to cheques issued in the personal capacity of the signatory.

Conclusion: A prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out against the petitioners only in relation to the cheques issued on behalf of the firm, and the demand notice was held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were allowed to continue, the revisional order was upheld, and no interference was warranted in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution against a firm, quashing is unwarranted where the complaint contains specific averments showing the partners' involvement in the transaction and responsibility for the firm's affairs, and the statutory notice is timely in law as extended by the applicable limitation directions.

---