1995 (1) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocedure to quash the proceedings, viz., E.O.C.C. No. 878 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras, against the petitioners. The first petitioner is the partnership firm, while petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners. The respondent has filed a complaint against these petitioners alleging commission of the offences under sections 120B, 34, 193, 196, 420....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against A. 1 and A. 2 but the same has to be quashed against the other petitioners for the reasons mentioned above. Learned counsel, Mr. K. Ramasamy, who is appearing for the respondent, refers to the partnership deed in which every partner has been given a specific responsibility in the administration of the firm and according to him from the responsibility allotted to each partner, it cannot be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e purpose of the administration, it will not amount to overall charge of the firm and, therefore, the proceedings against petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 cannot be allowed to continue. In this case, not only for the mere reason that the partners are in charge of the conduct of the business of the first accused firm, but also for their participation in the commission of the offences, the complaint has been....