SUGEETH Vs. BINU MAMPILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in all these 4 cases is one of the accused in the impugned complaint in these 4 cases instituted for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, on the basis of separate complaints preferred by the respective complainants and those complaints are pending before the respective courts. The petitioner is accused No.3 in S.T.No.348/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, which is the subject matter of . He is accused No.2 in C.C.No.3338/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.2354/2016. The petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C.No.3336/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.2365/2016. He is accused No.2 in C.C.No.3337/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.6673/2016. The impugned complaints have been preferred by the respective complainant concerned relating to the alleged dishonour of cheque issued from an account of a partnership firm by name "M/s. Ordinary Films" and it is alleged that the petitioner is also one of the partners of the said firm, which is in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the said partnership firm and that, apart from the partnership firm, who is the principal accused in these cases, the Managing Partner of the said firm as well as the petitioner, as the partner, are also arrayed as accused in these complaints. The sheet anchor of the contentions raised by the petitioner in these cases are that he was not a partner of the said partnership firm at the time of issuance and execution of the cheques in question inasmuch as he had retired from the firm as its partner as early as on 6.6.2013 as evident from Anx.A-2 and that another person was inducted as a partner of the firm consequent to the retirement of the petitioner from the firm, with effect from 6.6.2013. Therefore, it is contended that as the petitioner had retired much prior to the issuance of the cheque in question, he cannot be vicariously held liable for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act, alleged to have been committed by the partnership firm. It is not in dispute that the alleged dishonour of cheques in question have all been issued from the account maintained by the partnership firm, who is accused No.1 in these complaints. Now, it will be pertinent to refer briefly to the facts in each of the 4 individual cases.

(2.) This Crl.M.C has been preferred to quash the impugned Anx.A-1 private criminal complaint preferred by R-1 complainant, which is now pending as S.T.No.348/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, with respect to the alleged dishonour of cheque No.248260 dated 11.11.2014 said to have been issued by the partnership firm by name and style "M/s. Ordinary Films" (Accused No.1) for an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs drawn on Indian Bank, North Paravur Branch in favour of R-1 complainant. The said cheque on presentation on 11.11.2014 was returned dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Statutory demand notice under Sec.138(b) of the N.I.Act was issued to the partnership firm on 12.12.2014 and to that on the petitioner on 16.12.2014 respectively, no reply was issued, etc.

(3.) This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash the impugned Anx.A-1 private complaint preferred by R-1 complainant, which is presently pending as C.C.No.3338/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, with respect to dishonour of cheque No.079740 dated 2.7.2015 issued by the above said partnership firm for an amount of Rs.6,81,500/- drawn on Indian Bank, North Paravur Branch, in favour of the complainant/R-1 herein.