JUDGMENT :

1. All these applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaints being Criminal Case Nos. 2617 of 2016, 2620 of 2016, 2619 of 2016, 2612 of 2016 and 2616 of 2016 respectively filed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (`NI Act’ for short).

2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these applications, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13523 of 2019 are considered, which are as under:

3.1 A complaint came to be filed in the year 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Probandar, thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot and it was renumbered. However, thereafter, again in view of the amendment in the NI Act, the complaint was transferred to Porbandar and it was given the criminal case number impugned herein. It is the case of the complainant that on depositing the cheques, they were returned with the endorsement `funds insufficient’ and when the demand for the amount was made and it was not complied with, the demand notice was issued, which were returned back with the endorsement `left’.

3.2 It is averred that the Milan Tyre Partnership Firm was initially incorporated with three partners – the applicants herein and one Sanjaybhai Mehta, who retired subsequently. Thereafter, the applicant no.2 herein also retired and her husband joined the firm and new partnership deed was executed. That, the relevant communication was made to the Income Tax Department every time the changes were made and also at the time of dissolution of partnership firm, the relevant communication was made. It is averred that the said partnership firm was dissolved on 30.9.2005, however, the dissolution deed was executed on 30.3.2007. It is the impugned complaints which are made in the year 2007 and renumbered thereafter, which are sought to be quashed by way of these applications.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Pipaliya for the applicants submitted that on bare reading of the complaint, it transpires that the complaint is filed against the partners only without impleading the partnership firm as party. He has submitted, by drawing attention to the notice correspondence that the notice is issued to the partners only and no notice is issued to the partnership firm. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the communication made to the Income Tax Officer, Rajkot by the partnership firm – Milan Tyre dated 4.12.2007 intimating that the partnership firm is dissolved on 30.9.2005 and PAN card is also surrendered. He has referred to the deed of partnership which is executed between the partners on 28.2.2004 in which the names of the partners were mentioned in the partnership deed and submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act, more particularly, explanation to Section 141, the partnership firm is also required to be impleaded as party in any proceeding carried out pursuant to the transaction made by the partnership firm. He has submitted that merely impleading the partners in any legal proceeding, more particularly, under Section 138 of the NI Act, will not be maintainable in the eye of law, in absence of partnership firm being impleaded as party.

5. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Pipaliya has relied on the following decisions:

(1) Aneeta Hada V/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2012)5 SCC 661, more particularly, paragraph 42

(2) Ratishbhai D Ramani V/s State of Gujarat and Ors. Reported in 2015(1) GLR 848, more particularly, paragraph 9

(3) Kiritbhai Patel V/s State of Gujarat, decided on 19.1.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.16297 of 2011.

6. He, therefore, submit