Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is limited to those in charge of the company's business, and the status of a partner as a sleeping partner can be determined by the partnership deed.

V.M. Jain, J. - This order shall dispose of all above mentioned two petitions, as common question of law and fact arise in both these petitions. The facts of petition bearing Crl. M. No. 7520-M of 2001, Smt. Shakti Bhakoo v. M/s. Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.) may be noticed.

2. Accused petitioner Smt. Shakti Bhakoo had filed this petition against the complainant M/s. Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.), seeking the quash-ment of criminal complaint dated 28.2.2000, copy Annexure P-7, filed by the complainant respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also seeking quashment of the summoning order dated 13.3.2000, copy Annexure P-8 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, being abuse of the process of law. In the petition it was alleged that the petitioner is a sleeping partner of M/s Sutlej Knitwears, Ludhiana and that she is a housewife and not at all connected with the day-to-day affairs of the said company and is also not responsible for any act done by other partner for himself or on behalf of the said company. It was alleged that in fact Anoop Bhakoo, brother-in-law of the petitioner, was the working partner of the said company. A copy of the partnership deed dated 1.4.1998, of the firm, M/s Sutlej Knitwears, was attached as Annexure P-l with the petition. It was alleged that a perusal of the partnership deed would show that the petitioner had nothing to do with the Banking affairs or day-to-day affairs of the said firm and that she is only a house wife and had been inducted as a sleeping partner in the said firm. It was alleged that Anoop Bhakoo, the other partner of the said firm, has lost 5 crossed cheques of the firm and he got a public notice published in newspaper and also gave intimation to the Bank about the loss of the said cheques and stopped the payments of the said cheques. It was alleged that having come to know that the said cheques had come in the custody of the respondent firm and their having refused to return those cheques, Anoop Bhakoo, the other partner or M/s. Sutlej Knitwears, filed a criminal complaint dated 2.11.1999, copy Annexure P-6, under Sections 378/379/420, IPC against the respondent firm and the Central Bank of India. It was alleged that the petitioner was astonished to receive summon in the criminal complaint dated 28.2.2000, copy Annexure P-7, under Section 138 of the Act, filed by the respondent firm and on the said complaint the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the summoning order dated 13.3.2000, copy Annexure P8. It was alleged that the criminal complaint and the said order of summoning were liable to be quashed (qua the petitioner), on the ground that the petitioner was only a sleeping partner and had nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the company and the cheques is question were lost by the other partner namely Anoop Bhakoo and that the criminal complaint was nothing but a counterblast to the complaint lodged by Anoop Bhakoo, partner of M/s. Sutlej Knitwears.

3. The said petition was contested by the complaint respondent by filing written reply and taking up the preliminary objection that after appearing in the Trial Court the petitioner has filed application dated 29.7.2000 under Section 245(2), Cr. P.C. for her discharge and that the said application was contested by the complainant respondent and after hearing both sides the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 25.9.2000, copy Annexure R-3. It was further alleged that the petitioner challenged the said order dated 25.9.2000 before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 5.2.2001, copy Annexure R-4. It was alleged that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the material facts from the Court. It was further alleged that the second petition was barred under Section 397(3), Cr. PC and no case for interference by this Court in the present petition under Sect