LALIT MOHAN CHANDRA BHATT Vs. AFSAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is preferred by the applicant Lalit Mohan Chandra Bhatt under Sec. 528 of BNSS 2023 for quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 124 of 2025, preferred under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act titled as Afsar Ali vs. Vaishnavi Food Product and Others, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) The main contention to challenge the proceeding is that the present applicant is not the signatory of the Cheque in question and the cheque has been signed by the authorized signatories, namely, Rajendra Kumar Sharma and Anil Kumar Sharma, therefore, the proceeding is bad in law qua the applicant. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was inducted as a partner in the firm, namely, M/s Vaishnavi Food Product by virtue of partnership deed dtd. 1/4/2023 and prior to this he had no concern whatsoever with the affairs and management of the partnership firm. He argued that the firm, namely, M/s Vaishnavi Food Product was originally constituted under a Partnership Deed dtd. 1/7/2011 and at that time the applicant was neither the partner nor the signatory since he was inducted as partner first time on 1/4/2023 and the reconstitution of partnership was registered on 19/10/2023 and, therefore, since the applicant was inducted as partner only on 1/4/2023, therefore, he has no liability in any manner. He further submits that the present applicant was authorized to operate and sign the cheques of the firm jointly with other partners only w.e.f. 1/2/2025, and, therefore, in respect of the cheques in question he is neither liable nor responsible.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate without examining the material placed on record and without examining who is the actual signatory of the cheque in question took cognizance and issued summons to the present applicant and even learned Magistrate have not recorded the reasons whether at the relevant point of time, the present applicant was responsible for affairs of the business of firm in terms of Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act.