Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint refused where cheque was issued in the accused's name and firm status was not conclusively shown.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the cheque had been issued by the accused in the name of the concern, the statutory notice was addressed to him in that capacity, and the record did not conclusively show at the threshold that the concern was a partnership firm requiring impleadment as a principal accused. The court treated the cited Supreme Court authority as distinguishable on its facts, since that case involved no issuance of the cheque by the appellant and no proof of control or responsibility. The proceedings were therefore allowed to continue, leaving the accused to establish his defence at trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the petitioner claimed to be only a partner of M/s Coal Corporation and not its proprietor, and that the partnership firm was not impleaded as an accused.

Analysis: The petition proceeded on the plea that the liability, if any, was that of the firm and that the firm alone was the principal offender. The countervailing circumstances noted were that the cheque had been issued by the petitioner in the name of M/s Coal Corporation, the statutory notice had been addressed to him in the same capacity, and in his reply he had described himself as the proprietor of the concern. The record did not show, at the threshold stage, that the account from which the cheque was drawn belonged to a partnership firm so as to compel quashing of the complaint. The distinction drawn from the cited Supreme Court authority was accepted as factual, because that case turned on the absence of issuance of cheque by the appellant and the absence of proof of control and responsibility, unlike the present case.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed at this stage, and the petition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act were allowed to continue, leaving the petitioner to establish his defence in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not liable to be quashed at the threshold where the cheque is issued by the accused in the name of the concern, the statutory notice is addressed to him in that capacity, and the record does not conclusively establish that the concern was a partnership firm requiring impleadment as a principal accused.

---