IMPORTANT POINT
Partners can be held vicariously liable for dishonoured cheques issued by the firm, but liability must be established based on specific involvement in the transaction.

ORDER :

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By way of the instant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Petitioner intends to challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”) by the Respondent-Complainant against the Petitioners through Complaint Case No. 395/2023 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur:

(3) Facts leading to the instant case are that the petitioners have issued two post dated cheques in favour of respondent dated 15.12.2022 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- (total of Rs. 12,50,000/-) which was dishonoured therefore, the complainant filed complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur under Section 138 of the NI Act. During pendency of the complaint case, the petitioners have filed application which was rejected. Against the said order the petitioners have filed criminal revision before the revisional court and the learned revisional court vide its order date 15.05.2024 affirmed the same and dismissed the revision. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 by the learned revisions court as well as the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is illegal and against the facts and law. He submits that the both the courts have failed to appreciate the ingredients of the NI Act as the provisions of Section 143-A has not been complied with. He submits that the both the courts have failed to see that the petitioner No. 2 is not the partner of the M/s. Techno Dealers nor has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 has already filed application in her favour and produced the partnership deed. In the clause 12 of the said deed, it is clear that if any legal responsibility arises, the Mulchand Jain would be responsible and unfortunately, he died. After his death the complainant fulfilled the blank cheques which got dishonored. He submits that the complainant has misused the cheque issued by late Mulchand Jain for which the petitioner No. 2 is not responsible nor she has received any amount from the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had presented the cheques 9 months after the death of Mulchand Jain and therefore he prays that the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the revisional court as well as the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur be quashed. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Susela Padmavathy Amma vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Arising Out of Special leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12390-12391 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent denying the averments made by the counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a settled position of law that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage. Since the proceedings are pending before the trial court and it is at the stage of framing of charge, appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner to raise all the grounds as stated in the petition before the trial court. He submits that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that two cheques bearing amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 10,00,000/- (total of Rs. 12,50,000/-) in favour of the respondent were dishonored on presentation, leading to filing of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the learned JMFC, Raipur and subsequently, the petitioners have filed application before the trial court for dismissal fo the complaint which was rejected and against they have filed criminal revision before the revisional court which was also dismissed. He submits that the petitioners being the partners of the petitioner firm, they are jointly and vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act which reads as under:

If the person committing