1. A “Hindu Undivided Family" - “(HUF)” is an “Association of Individuals”; so it is a “company” in terms of Section 141 of the “Negotiable Instruments Act” and thus, every member of the HUF is vicariously liable for punishment for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by the “Kartha” of the HUF. This is precisely the stand of the complainant, in these cases, which is seriously refuted by the accused. This question is the basis for the instant petitions.

2. In all these cases, besides the fact that the petitioner and respondent are one and the same, since common grounds have been raised, these petitions have been heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.

3. The respondent instituted prosecution in all these cases alleging that the petitioner along with the other accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner is the second accused in all these cases.

4. According to the case of the complainant, there is a Hindu Undivided Family known as “Prahladray I. Jhanwar HUF” in which the first accused is the Kartha and the petitioner herein is a member. According to the further allegations, the first accused, in the capacity of the Kartha of the HUF, entered into an agency agreement with the respondent on 30.06.2009. In respect of the said agency, the HUF became liable to pay a sum of Rs.85 lakhs. In discharge of the said liability of the HUF, the first accused issued the cheques in question to the respondent. All the cheques were presented for collection and they were returned unpaid as ‘sufficient fund was not available in the account’. Thereafter, the respondent issued legal notices and since the demand for payment was not complied with, he instituted the above private complaints in C.C.Nos.2633, 2634, 2635, 2639, 2638, 2636, 2637, 2640, 2628, 2629, 2630, 2631 and 2632 of 2011 before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is alleged in the complaints that the petitioner being a member of the HUF is also liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Act. He has come up with the instant Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash these cases so far as he is concerned.

5. As I have outlined at the first paragraph of this judgment, it is the contention of the petitioner that a HUF is not a ‘company’ in terms of Section 141 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner though a member of the HUF, is not liable to be prosecuted for an offence committed by the Kartha of the HUF.

6. But it is the contention of the respondent that a HUF is an “Association of Individuals” in terms of Section 141 of the Act and therefore, the HUF as well as every member of the HUF who is responsible for the HUF, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jagadish Rai Agarwal and Ors v State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors (II (2005) BC 497), about which, I will make reference at the appropriate stage of this judgment.

7. Now, let us have a close look into Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which proceeds as follows:-

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two yea