Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Respondent had filed a complaint against the Petitioners before a Judicial Magistrate, for an offence under the said provision for the dishonor of cheque worth Rs. 3,00,000 issued to him by the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed a petition before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings primarily on the ground that the said cheque in question was drawn on behalf of the partnership firm. They contended that the complaint could not be maintained without issuing the statutory notice to the partnership firm and making the partnership firm as an accused in the complaint. The effect of non-registration of the firm could not lead to institution of criminal proceedings against its partners without making the firm a party. Reliance was placed on the combined reading of Section 141 and 69(2) of the Act. Relying on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, 2012(5) SCC 661, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that a partnership firm can be brought under Section 141 and the firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to maintain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. They also agreed with the contentions with regard to Section 69(2). The court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal original petition. The High Court of Madras held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), cannot be maintained against the partners of a firm, without making the firm as an accused person.
86540
103860
630
114
59824