SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Mrs. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Rayani Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondent
Crl. P No.750 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ponnam Ravindra Babu
For the Respondent: Doddala Prudhvi Teja

Vicarious liability applies to partners in a firm under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, making them accountable for cheques issued by the firm, irrespective of individual management involvement.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 142 - Petition to quash proceedings - Accused contended that he is a sleeping partner and not responsible for cheque liabilities - Court held that vicarious liability applies when partners are equally responsible in firm’s operations - No grounds established for quashment - Criminal petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 8, 12)

(B) Vicarious liability - Under Section 141 of the Act, individuals in charge of a company may be held liable for offences committed in course of business - Disputed factual claims to be resolved at trial, not through quashing proceedings. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a partner in a firm, challenged proceedings for dishonoured cheques issued for business debts, claiming non-responsibility. Cheques returned due to insufficient funds, leading to criminal complaint.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner may still be liable under Section 141 due to vicarious liability claims, affirming the need for trial to resolve factual disputes.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a sleeping partner, could be quashed from proceedings based on claims of non-responsibility and lack of signature.

Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that vicarious liability applies when partners share responsibility; self-serving assertions do not suffice for quashing.

Result: Criminal petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the cheque issuance (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against the petitioner's claims (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. determination on quashing based on presented evidence. (Para 7)
4. court's analysis on vicarious liability and evidence standards (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. court's dismissal of the quashment petition (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT /ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Civil Judge), Guntur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the Act').

2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows :

    (a) Accused No.1-Krishna Agencies is a Partnership Firm, accused No.2 is the Managing Partner and petitioner/accused No.3 is one of the partners.

    (b) To meet the business necessities, accused No.1, represented by accused No.2 opened a Khata on 07.09.2019 and purchased cotton seed hulls from the complainant Company-Sri Raja Rajeswari Cotton Traders, which deals with the business in sale and supply of cotton seed hulls, cotton lint and maize. Subsequently accused No.1 also purchased cotton lint and maize from the complainant on credit and all the said transactions were duly entered in the said Khata.

    (c) On repeated requests, on 21.11.2019, accused made part payment of Rs.25,300/- by way of NEFT through the account of accused No.1 with Syndicate Bank, Brundavan Gardens Branch, Guntur and thereafter, no payment has been done by the accused.

    (d) By 30.12.2019 the amount due to the complainant by the accused was Rs.82,69,225.68 ps. Thereafter several demands, accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1-Firm had issued three Cheques Bearing Nos.943575, 943576 and 943577 for Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs respectively drawn in favour of the complainant on Syndicate Bank, Brundavan Gardens Branch, Guntur, towards part payment of the outstanding amount and requested the complainant not to present the said cheques till 15.02.2020 stating that the funds will be arranged in the account of A1-Firm by accused Nos.2 and 3.

    (e) Thereafter on 10.02.2020, accused No.2 again requested the complainant not to present the said cheques assuring that the funds will be arranged by the end of February, 2020, but the accused failed to keep up their promise. Again on 02.03.2020 accused No.1 issued another Cheque Bearing No.943578 for Rs.33 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment and requested to present all the four cheques after 10.03.2020. However, after issuance of the cheque dated 02.03.2020, accused No.2 got issued a legal notice dated 05.03.2020 to the complainant with all false and baseless allegations for which, the complainant got issued a suitable reply on 12.03.2020 intimating about the presentation of the said cheques before the Bank. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said four cheques with his banker i.e., ICICI Bank, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur on 16.03.2020 three cheques were returned due to "Insufficient Funds" and the fourth cheque was returned for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer" under Memos dated 18.03.2020. Hence, the complainant lodged a private complaint against all the accused which was numbered as CC No.2332 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur.

Grounds Sought for Quashment :

3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the said case, petitioner/accused No.3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds :

    (i) The cheques alleged to have been issued were only towards security but not for discharge of any enforceable liability and the petitioner herein is only a sleeping p

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top