Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
G. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2019, SLP (Crl.) No. 655 of 2019
Decided On : 05-04-2019
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 r/w section 141 – Complaint containing sufficient description of (i) the nature of the partnership; (ii) the business which was being carried on; (iii) the role of each of the accused in the conduct of the business and, specifically, in relation to the transactions which took place with the complainant – At every place accused have been referred to in the plural sense – Besides, specific role of each partner elucidated – High Court quashed the complaint taking the firm as a Company and the partners as directors – Not sustainable. (Para 17, 18)
(2015) 1 SCC 103 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This is case of cheque bouncing u/s 138 and 141.
High Court quashed the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
High Court missed the distinction between a company and its directors on one hand and a partnership firm and its partners.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 13 June 2018 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Criminal Petition No. 5301 of 2014. While allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) instituted by the first respondent, the High Court quashed the proceedings, Criminal M.P. No. 295 of 2014 in C.C. No. 751 of 2012 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class arising out of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 “the Act.”
3. The appellant is the complainant. The first accused is a partnership firm by the name of Vainqueur Corporate Services.
4. The third accused is the managing partner. The first respondent, who is arrayed as the second accused, is a partner of the firm. The complaint alleges that the partnership firm was dealing in data entry work. After obtaining contracts for data entry, sub-contracts were entered into by the firm for the completion of the assignments. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of the complaint are material to the controversy in the present case and are extracted below:
“1. That the accused No. 3 is the Managing Director and Accused No. 2 is one of the partners of M/s. Vainqueur Corporate Services situated at Hyderabad and dealing in data entry work. They used to take contracts of data entry and give sub contracts to others to complete said assignment.
2. The accused persons have given sub contract of data entry to the complainant in the month of August 2010 by taking a caution deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 which has paid through two cheques which were credited into their account No. 304011014832 at ING Vysya Bank on 30.08.2010. Thereafter, they have assigned the job of data entry to the complainant from the month of September 2010 to December 2010.
3. The complainant did the data entry work for said four months worth of Rs. 8,50,000 as per rates of understanding. They have issued cheque bearing No. 929605 dated 01.11.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Hyderabad for Rs. 2,00,000 towards work of September 2010 and cheque bearing No. 929620 dated 18.12.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Hyderabad for Rs. 2,50,000 towards work of October 2010.
4. The complainant presented said two cheques for collection through his bank i.e. HDFC, Mahabubnagar but said cheques were returned unpaid due to insufficient balance in their bank account. The said fact of return of cheques was informed to the accused with a request to pay the dishonoured cheque amount along with subsequent months i.e., for the month of November and December 2010 amounts.
5. On that accused No. 2 transferred Rs. 1,00,000 from his account No. 10141560000576 to the account No. 10141070007111 of complainant at HDFC Bank, Mahabubnagar on 08.02.2011 and 10.02.2011. They also assured the complainant to pay the balance amount within short time. As the accused no. 2 is son of brother in law of complainant, he believed them and kept quite for some time. As they have committed default in payment of amounts, the complainant could not continue said work from the month of January 2011, as he had no money to pay the salaries of his employees.
6. After repeated demands for the payment of balance amount of Rs. 7,50,000 towards completed work and Rs.1,00,000 given towards caution deposit, the accused No. 3 issued two more cheques bearing No. 929675 and 929676 dated 30.05.2011 and 19.07.2011 respectively each for Rs. 2,00,000 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Hyderabad towards part payment of due amount and assured to pay the balance amount within short time.
7. The complainant presented said cheque bearing No. 929675 but the same was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in their bank account on 30.05.2011. The complainant informed the accused about the return of cheque and they assured to honour both cheques on re-presentation in the month of July 2011. As per their request, the complainant presented cheques bearing No. 929675 and 929676 in t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
