RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) ON a reference made by the learned single Judge for placing the matter before the appropriate bench, this matter is posted before this Bench.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein were the accused in C. C. No. 88/97 filed by the complainant-first respondent herein in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The present petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners herein for quashing the same under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) THE complainant had made the following averments in his complaint. It was averred by the complainant that the complainant is doing business in Madanapalle Town under the name and style of M/s. Shine Enterprises. It is a partnership firm. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant had commercial dealing with the accused. They were purchasing non-alcoholic beverage drink called "pepup" black label since 1996. They had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 as a caution deposit with the accused.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the complainant that they were local distributors at Madanapalle. The first stock purchased by them was sold successfully. They placed on order of second consignment with the accused and a demand draft of Rs. 1,67,328. 00 was given to the accused for supply of non-alcoholic drink on 14-6-1996.

( 5 ) IT is the further case of the complainant that when they received the second consignment, there was a pressure from the local police and therefore the stock could not be sold. So, they returned the commodity to the accused by despatching through a lorry bearing RTA Registration No. AAA 4445 at Madras branch. The accused had sent a credit note for Rs. 1,55,080. 00 and promised to return the value of the stock returned to them. The accused issued a cheque drawn on Co-operative Bank of Ahmedabad Limited, Ahmedabad for Rs. 1,65,080. 00. The cheque was dated 6-2-1997. The complainant presented the said cheque to their financier i. e. , Canara Bank, Madanapalle branch for encashment but the cheque was returned on 22-2-1997 with an endorsement "funds are insufficient. "

( 6 ) IT is the further case of the complainant that they issued a legal notice dated 25-2-1997 to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the amount due under the cheque within a priod of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. But there was no response. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint against the accused under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 7 ) ON presentation of the complaint, summons were issued to the accused. Having come to know that the criminal case is filed against them, they approached this court for quashing the proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

( 8 ) THE main contention was raised on behalf of the accused petitioners herein that the complaint is not maintainable because of the fact that the complainant firm is not registered under Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. Section 69 of the Partnership Act reads as under:"69. EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION:- (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (2) No suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect- (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document