KAMAL KUMAR Vs. K G DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions, the Petitioners seek quashing of criminal Complaint Nos. 7311A/04, 7310/04 and 7311/04 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N.I. Act) and the proceedings pursuant thereto pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that admittedly the cheque in question has been issued by one Anil Kumar as the sole proprietor of M/s. Triveni Transport Company. The Petitioners are neither the signatory of the cheque nor they have anything to do with either Anil Kumar or M/s. Triveni Transport Company since it is a proprietorship concern. Though vicarious liability can be fastened under Section 141 N.I. Act Act but it is only a strict liability and can be fastened only if the Petitioners fall within the ambit of the said provision. According to him a perusal of the entire complaint do not contain allegations which fulfill the requirement of Section 138 N.I. Act against the Petitioners and thus the proceedings qua the Petitioners in the abovementioned Complaint Cases is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 on the other hand relying upon Vijay Chandela Vs. Cable Sales and Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2005 1 Crimes 437 contends that the question whether the Petitioners are liable or not is a question to be decided during trial on reception of evidence. Hence no case for quashing of proceedings is made out and the petitions be dismissed.