(1.) THE petitioner herein is the Hyderabad. He filed this petition under third accused (A3) in a criminal case i.e. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CC No. 172 of 2003 on the file of the (for short 'Cr.PC') to quash the proceedings Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, against him in the said criminal case.
(2.) THE first respondent herein which is a private limited company is the complainant in the aforesaid CC No.172 of 2003 and it filed the same alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short 'Act') against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. THE allegations made in the complaint are that the petitioner and the third respondent herein are partners of the second respondent partnership firm and that in connection with a subsisting liability the third respondent Umakanth Agarwal issued six cheques for various amounts aggregating to Rs.18 lakhs on behalf of the said firm in favour of the complainant drawn on Agroha Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Ricob Gunj, Hyderabad and that the said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". THE learned Magistrate after examining the complaint took cognizance of it as CC No.172 of 2003 on his file for the above offences and issued process to the petitioner, his partnership firm and the other partner i.e. Umakanth Agarwal who is the third respondent herein. It is then stated in the complaint that the petitioner and the third respondent are active partners of their partnership firm M/s. Paro Food Products which is the first accused in the case and therefore all the three of them are liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act.
(3.) NOW to appreciate the plea of the petitioner and the contention of his Counsel Sri Sanghi it would be necessary to look into Section 141 of the Act and the relevant portions in it read as follows.