1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by A-3 and A-4 seeking to quash their prosecution in C.C.No.226 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahabubnagar.

2. The second respondent herein filed a complaint against the respondents 3 and 4, who are A-1 and A-2, and the petitioners herein (A-3 and A-4) alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.4 and the petitioners herein are stated to be the partners of the third respondent firm. According to the second respondent/ complainant, the third respondent/A-1 through the fourth respondent/A-2 borrowed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs on 07-02-2005 from the complainant firm by way of a cheque bearing No.946964 of State Bank of India, Mahabubnagar Branch and realized the proceeds of the cheque and executed a promissory note to repay the debt at 18% per annum and passed receipt on the same day. The complainant alleges that the accused paid an amount of Rs.12,600/- towards part of the interest and failed to pay the balance and on repeated demands A-1 through A-2 issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.353582 dated 13-09-2006 of State Bank of India, Mahabubnagar for Rs.3,75,000/- purporting to be in discharge of the debt and liability and when the complainant presented the cheque for payment, it was returned unpaid on the ground that A-1 had already closed the account. The complainant gave a statutory notice on 28-09-2006 to which Accused No.2 issued a reply notice on 13-10-2006 and A-3 and A-4 issued reply notice on 14-10-2006, denying their liability. Thereafter, the second respondent herein filed the complaint alleging offences not only under Section 138 of the Act, but also under Section 420 IPC. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and numbered as C.C.No.226 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by A-3 and A-4 seeking to quash their prosecution.

3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State are heard. Records are perused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A-3 and A-4 being ladies were sleeping partners and were not in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the firm and they retired from partnership on 30-06-2005 much prior to the issuance of the cheque on 13-09-2006 and, therefore, they are not liable for the offences alleged and further proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, contended that as per sub-clause (2) of Section 141 of the Act where an offence is committed by a company and it is proved that it was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such person shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and, therefore, it is not necessary that the partners of the firm against whom the complaint is filed shall invariably be in charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. He would, therefore, submit that petitioners/A-3 and A-4 are also liable for the offence as the cheque was issued with their concurrence and connivance. He further submitted that specific allegations are made against petitioners/A-3 and A-4 regarding their involvement in the offence not only under Section 138 of the Act, but also under Section 420 I.P.C.

6. According to the complainant, the third respondent firm/A-1 represented by its partners i.e., fourth respondent/A-2 and petitioners/A-3 and A-4 borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant firm on 07-02-2005 and executed a promissory note to repay the said debt with interest at 18% per annum and paid only a sum of Rs.12,600/- and pursuant to repeated demands by the complainant, the accused