R SUDHA MADHURI DEVI Vs. K SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 10-9-2003 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 5968 of 2003 in C.C.No. 1172 of 2001 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioner and the 1st respondent herein are A-3 and the complainant respectively in C.C.No. 1172 of 2001. The complainant was one of the partners in a partnership firm by name M/s. Sriven Incorporation. The petitioner herein, her husband-Rangaraju Satish Kumar and one Smt. R. Sobha are the other partners. The complainant retired from the partnership firm and a retirement deed came to be executed on 06-06-2001. In nutshell, there were four partners viz., Rangaraju Satish Kumar (A-2), Smt. R. Sudha Madhuri Devi (petitioner herein-A-3), Smt. R. Sobha and Smt. Kotamgari Sudha (complainant). Out of four, two of them (K. Sudha and R. Sobha) retired from the partnership firm and a deed of retirement came to be executed on 6-6-2001. The retiring partners were paid certain amounts by way of cheques towards their capital balance. After retirement of two partners, the partnership firm came to be reconstituted with the other two partners who are the petitioner and her husband. The shares in the profit and loss have been readjusted between her and her husband in the ratio of 90:10. The complainant presented cheques for encashment. Of the cheques presented by him,a cheque bearing No. 755702 for Rs. 2,27,790-34 came to be dishonoured. Consequently the complainant issued a statutory notice to the firm and petitioner's husband (A-2) and filed the complaint before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C. 1172 of 2001 and issued process. The petitioner herein who is A-3 in C.C. 1172 of 2001 entered appearance and filed C.M.P.No. 5968 of 2003 seeking dismissal of the complaint in view of the judgment of this Court in Mukesh Gupta v. Kabsons Gas Equipment Limited. The learned Magistrate on hearing counsel for both the parties dismissed the application by order dated 10-9-2003. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Smt. Sudha Maduri Devi (A-3) has filed this Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the acquisitions and allegations made in the complaint filed by Rl against the petitioner are vague and there are no specific allegations/acquisitions as such made against the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the acquisitions/allegations made in the complaint must be clear, unambiguous and specific against each of the accused and such allegations must reveal that each of the accused was incharge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for the conduct of its business at the material time when the offence was committed by the partnership firm. It is also submitted by him that there is no averment in the complaint that the cheque in question has been issued with the consent of the petitioner and that mere repeating the words mentioned in S. 141 of N.I. Act would not be sufficient and that there must be something more clearly stated in the complaint to make the petitioner liable for the offence u/s. 138 of N.I. Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions: