KIRITBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the applicant-original accused no.1 has prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No.273 of 2010 filed by respondent no.2 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act), Court No.5, Ahmedabad qua the present applicant.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Dave for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Soni for respondent no.1-State of Gujarat. Though served, respondent no.2 has not filed appearance. Matter is listed for final hearing and pending since 2011. Hence, the same is taken up today.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the applicant submitted that respondent no.2 has filed Criminal Case No.273 of 2010 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court against the applicant and another as partners of J.Parikh and Sons-the partnership firm under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of two cheques one for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and another for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Learned advocate has referred to the averments and allegations made in the impugned complaint and mainly submitted that the respondent no.2- complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the partners of the partnership firm-J.Parikh and sons only. However, the original complainant has not joined partnership firm as accused and therefore the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside only on this ground. Learned advocate has relied upon the provision contained in Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada V/s M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt.Ltd., 2012 AIR(SC) 2795 and the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ratishbhai D Ramani V/s State of Gujarat and another, 2015 1 GLR 848 and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. He, therefore, requested that the impugned complaint be quashed and set aside qua the present applicant.