MADAN SINGH Vs. VEE PEE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) on the premise that the Petitioners were sought to be prosecuted as Partners of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion whereas infact M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion was a Proprietorship Firm. In fact, in the Complaint itself, the firm was prosecuted through its Proprietor/Partner and Respondent No.2 was prosecuted as Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion. Thus, although in the title of the Complaint, the Respondent was not sure whether the firm was a Partnership or Proprietorship firm. In Para 3 of the complaint it was averred that M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion was a Partnership firm and accused Nos. 2 to 5 were its partners and were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day business of the firm. It was further stated that accused No.2 (not a Petitioner before this Court) was the signatory of the cheque in question and was also, therefore, liable to be prosecuted. Learned counsel for the Petitioners referring to the reply to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. served upon Respondent No.3, stated that M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion was a Proprietorship firm and his father Madan Singh and his younger brother Rajender Rajpurohit had nothing to do with the same and further that accused Bharat who was also prosecuted as partner of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion was merely an employee who had left the job.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Respondents urges that a host of documents were placed before the Trial Court to prove that M/s. Dhanlaxmi Fashion was a proprietorship firm but the same were not taken into consideration.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the Petition for quashing the complaint. Relying on Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. v. State & Ors.,2010 3 JCC 273; and Krishna Murari Lal v IFCI Factors Ltd. 2013 (1) JCC (NI) 1 he urges that at this stage the averments made in the Complaint have to be accepted on its face value and the Petitioners' defence, if any, cannot be considered at this stage.