Retired partners cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the NI Act for cheques issued after their retirement unless specific averments of continued liability are made in the complaint.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Arun G., appearing for the petitioner/s and the learned counsel Sri.R.Kiran, appearing for the respondent/s in all these cases.

2. The petitioners in all these cases are erstwhile partners of R.R.INFOCOM. Since these are batch of petitions projecting a solitary issue in law they are taken up together and considered by this common order. The issue is whether the partners who have retired from partnership firm can be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short) for a cheque that is rendered by the existing partner.

3. Crl.P.No.9443/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.3 and 4 - Jai Agarwal and Anjana Agarwal in C.C.No.9585/2023. Crl.P.No.8100/2023 is preferred by accused No.4 - Anjana Agarwal in C.C.No.7311/2023. Crl.P.No.13150/2023 is preferred by accused No.3 - Jai Agarwal in C.C.No.7311/2023. Crl.P.No.8523/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.3 and 4 - Jai Agarwal and Anjana Agarwal in C.C.No.9504/2023. The instrument involved in the subject transactions are three different cheques totally amounting to Rs.3,27,00,000/-. The complainant is the respondent - Inflow Technologies Private Limited in all these cases.

4. It transpires that a transaction between the R.R.INFOCOM and Inflow Technologies Private Limited is with regard to certain purchase orders placed by R.R.INFOCOM and the deliveries made by the complainant - Inflow Technologies Private Limited. The payment due date on these purchase orders are of different dates. They are 18.10.2020, 21.09.2020 and 29.11.2020. At that point in time, it transpires that the petitioner/s in all these cases were partners in the said firm i.e., R.R. INFOCOM. On 11.10.2021, these petitioners who are arrayed as accused in the afore-said cases retire from the partnership and the partnership is reconstituted by drawing up an agreement between the retiring and continuing partners of R.R.INFOCOM. The averment is that all necessities in law with regard to intimation of retired partners is complied with. The partners retire on 11.10.2021. The existing partner one Renu J. Nair who is accused No.2 in all these cases issues three cheques, albeit towards the payment that had to be made on 18.10.2020, 21.09.2020 and 29.11.2020. The instruments/cheques were issued on 30.11.2022, 02.12.2022 and 05.12.2022. Those cheques were presented for its realization and were returned with an endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". It is then a notice is issued by the complainant initiating proceedings under the N.I.Act. The complainant narrates that the notice were sent to the petitioners as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner defends contending that no notice was received by them. Be that as it may.

5. The proceedings were then initiated before the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., drawing all these persons along with the firm and accused No.2 as accused in these proceedings. The proceedings are now pending as criminal cases aforesaid. The issuance of summons is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.

6. The learned counsel Sri.Arun G., appearing for the petitioners in all these cases would contend that the petitioners were no doubt partners on the date on which the supply was made or the delivery was made and the payment due date. But the cheques are not issued by the present petitioners, it is issued by the existing partner after the partnership was reconstituted when these petitioners came out of the partnership.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/s would further contend that the complaint averments are omnibus against accused Nos.1 to 4 and no particular role or responsibility being continued after the retirement of these petitioners, as partners is averred and therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the proceedings against these petitioners are necessarily to be quashed.

8. The learned counsel