GANGADHAR Vs. SHRENIKMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order also governs disposal of aforesaid Misc. Criminal Case No. 3688/2002. This petition has been filed by applicant Gangadhar for quashing the proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sailana.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that non-applicant No. 1/shrenikmal filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against applicant and non-applicant No. 2 Renukanand. According to the complainant's own showing, non-applicant No. 2/renukanand is the Proprietor of Laxmi Trading Company and the cheque in dispute was duly issued under the signature of non-applicant No. 2/renukanand in both the cases and the same bears seal of the Proprietor. Non-applicant No. 2, Renukanand is the Proprietor. Though the applicant Gangadhar is the brother of Renukanand but he has no concern with the business transaction arrived between non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The applicant, has falsely been implicated in the case just to harass him. Since it is not a partnership firm or a company nor the applicant is the partner of the firm, he could not have been impleaded as an accused especially when its a Proprietor firm and the cheque was specifically issued by its Proprietor Renukanand. The Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments :-- (1) G. Hari and others Vs. John Promod Alexander and another, 2000 Cr. LJ 1653; (2) G. Surya Prabhvathi Vs. Nekkanti Suhrahmanyeswara Rao, II (1999) BC 172.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 submits that the applicant is the Partner of Firm and he is also equally responsible for the transaction. Therefore, he has been rightly impleaded as an accused.