JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. K.M. Parikh, learned advocate waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No.22509/2018 filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.

3. The petitioner states that in and around February/March 2018, he was serving in a private organization and had never ventured into any business nor had become Director of any of the Companies, nor he was any authorized signatory or partner in any partnership firm.

3.1 The petitioner states that Criminal Complaint No.22509 of 2018 came to be registered and he was served with summons. The petitioner states that mother of the petitioner is the occupier of Plot No. 2/46, Muktalaya, Post Office Road, Near Janakpuri Society, Kim. He has no connection whatsoever with the said land as he was serving in Bharuch and other town in private section and organizations. However, as the cheques came to be dishonoured, the complainant had mentioned the address of M/s. Hoventa Pharma – respondent no.3 firm and the summons was served upon the petitioner in respect of the criminal complaint.

3.2 The petitioner states that neither he has any connection with M/s. Hoventa Pharma nor has any participation in the affairs or business of the firm, nor has any join account with any of the said firm, and had never any kind of transaction with any partner of the firm. The petitioner also contends that he had not invested any money in the said firm and the partnership deed reveals that he was not partner of the M/s. Hoventa Pharma.

3.3 The petitioner states that wife of the petitioner, Snehal Prajapati was the sleeping partner, but she too has not participated in day-to-day affairs of the firm, nor she has taken any decision of placing orders of the goods from the respondent no.2. The petitioner states that she neither has signed any invoices, bills or challans nor she has singed any cheques including the cheques, which is stated to be dishonoured.

3.4 The petitioner contends that though he has no connection with the partnership firm nor in the alleged transaction, received and purchased of the goods, he has been wrongly joined in the complaint; thus states that the complaint qua him is required to be quashed and set aside.

4. Advocate Mr. Rohan Majmudar for Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Madhusudan Mohanlal Somani Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237542 to contend that there should be specific averments against the Directors, showing as to how and in what manner the Directors are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Mr. Majmudar has also relied on the case of Patel Nitaben Chetanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237429, to submit that husband and wife are different entity and therefore there cannot be any prosecution against the husband, if the wife has dealing in her individual capacity.

4.1 Mr. Majmudar relied on Form-G of Register Of Firms and the copy of partnership deed to substantiate that the present petitioner is not the partner of M/s. Hoventa Pharma. He submits that the Certificate of Register of Firms give the details of date of joining as a partner to the firm and the same has been approved. Mr. Majmudar contend that from 27.03.2017 till 09.11.2021, the partners of M/s. Hoventa Pharma, Snehal Nilesh Prajapati and Mr. Chirag Bhojani had 50% share each, which corroborate the partnership documents on record. He contended that complaint was filed on 16.05.2018 and thus this fact was clearly on public domain for the complainant to verify the fact whether the petitioner is the partner of the firm or not?

5. Mr. K.M. Parikh, learned advoc