BHANGARU PACKAGING COMPANY Vs. MARWEL ORGANICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 197/2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cherala.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the accused-petitioner-M/s. Bhangaru Packaging Co. represented by its Proprietor Sri M. Madhusudan Rao, purchased adhesives from the complainant-1st respondent Marwel Organics represented by its Managing Partner Sri Daggubati Srinivas Prasad on credit to a tune of Rs. 1,95,000/- as on 13-7-2000, that the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 669850, dated 13-7-2000 for Rs. 1,95,000/- to the 1st respondent, that when the cheque was dishonoured for want of funds, the 1st respondent requested the petitioner to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheque, that thereafter the petitioner issued another cheque bearing No. 957941, on 24-1-2001 for Rs. 1,13,958/-, as the previous cheque was time barred, with an assurance that funds would be available in the account, that cheque too was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and that thereupon the 1st respondent got issued a demand notice to the 1st respondent which the petitioner did not claim, and therefore the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered as C.C. No. 197/2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cherala. To quash the proceedings in the said case, the accused filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent firm came into existence in pursuance of a deed of partnership on 2-6-2001, but the cheque in question was issued on 24-1-2001 and, therefore, by the date of issuance of the cheque, the 1st respondent-firm was not registered and, therefore, the 1st respondent firm was not competent to file the complaint because it was unregistered, and that the person whose name was shown in the partnership deed was not the Managing Partner of the 1st respondent firm, and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant contended that the name of the 1st respondent-firm was entered in the Registrar of Firms on 27-8-1991 and, therefore, there is no bar under the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. Therefore, he prays, the petition be dismissed.