P RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. SANGHI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent filed C.C.No.75/2003 in the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as 'the Act') in connection with the bouncing of cheques issued by the 2nd respondent firm. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 5. This petition is filed to quash the said proceedings in C.C.No.75/2003 against the petitioners inter alia on the ground that they are not the partners of the 2nd respondent firm and that in fact 2nd respondent firm was constituted on 01-04-1993 with eighteen other persons as its partners, as disclosed from the partnership deed.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, since they do not show that petitioners are responsible for the conduct of the business of 2nd respondent firm and/or were in charge of the affairs of the said firm at the time of commission of the offence, and since in the sworn statement also no mention as to how petitioners are running the business of the 2nd respondent firm, and which of the affairs of the said firm are being looking after by them is made, though specific allegations are made against 5th respondent, who is the Office Manager of the 2nd respondent firm, and since the allegations against petitioners are as vague as vagueness can be, and since all the paragraphs from Paragraph 4 onwards of the complaint the letters and figures 'Nos.2 to 5' are written in hand as suffix to type written word 'accused' it is obvious that those letters and figures were written as an after thought to somehow rope in the petitioners also as accused in the case, the complaint against the petitioners is liable to be quashed in view of the ratio in the unreported decision SMT N. SARADA VS. S. RANGA REDDY AND ANOTHER. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent is that petitioners by holding themselves out as partners of 2nd respondent, placed orders with the 1st respondent for supply of the goods and 2nd respondent after having accepted the goods supplied by the 1st respondent, in pursuance of those orders placed by the petitioners, issued cheques as payment for the goods supplied and so the contention of the petitioners that they are not partners of 2nd respondent firm, merely because their names are not found in the copy of the partnership deed produced by the petitioners along with their petition, cannot be a ground for holding that they are not liable as partners of 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. It is his contention since the allegations in the complaint and the sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate clearly show that petitioners also are conducting the business of the 2nd respondent firm, there are no grounds to quash the complaint against the petitioners. In reply the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the letters allegedly written by the 1st petitioner placing order on behalf of the 2nd respondent are not written by 1st petitioner and are forged documents.

(3.) The principles for quashing a complaint are well known. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DEVENDRAPPA held that this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not assume the role of a trial Court and embark upon a enquiry as to the reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence. In S.A.NANJUNDESWARA Vs. M/S. VANLAK AGROTECH PVT. LTD. It is held that when the allegations in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act read with the sworn statement of the complainant, when taken on their face value show the commission of the offence the complaint cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.