Falsely implicating a person in complaints under the N.I.Act and establishing liability under Section 141 of the N.I.Act require strict compliance with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

This order shall dispose of the above-noted petitions as identical questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. The above noted petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint cases No.32100 dated 02.03.2013, No.32105 dated 02.03.2013, No.32102 dated 02.03.2013, No.32101 dated 02.03.2013, No.32103 dated 02.03.2013, No.32104 dated 02.03.2013 and No.32106 dated 02.03.2013, respectively, all titled as 'M/s Pragati Enterprises vs. M/s K.K.Tanners & Ors.”, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as 'N.I.Act') read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-39632-2015.

4. The facts of the case are that complainant-M/s Pragati Enterprises through its proprietor Pardeep Shukla (now respondent) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against M/s K.K.Tanners, Girdhari Lal and Daya Ram (petitioner herein) with the averments that the complainant was the supplier of leather chemicals and the petitioner, being partner alongwith others, had made purchases of the same from the complainant and thus, an amount of Rs. 48,90,717/- was outstanding against the petitioner and others and in order to discharge their legal debt, they had issued nine post dated cheques of different dates in favour of the respondent, all drawn on Union Bank of India, signed by Girdhari Lal (accused No.2 in complaint Annexure P-1 in CRM-M-39632-2015).

5. During the pendency of all seven complaints filed by the respondent-company, the petitioner moved applications for discharge on the ground that he was neither a partner nor a signatory to the cheques in question nor an account holder; that the petitioner had no connection with the commission of the offence and that he was falsely implicated just to harass him.

6. While dismissing the said applications, the trial Court observed that since accused No.3 (petitioner herein) had been summoned, alongwith other accused, on 12.06.2014, therefore, his discharge, at a later stage, would amount to recalling of its own order, which is not permissible.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the complaints under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as the petitioner was neither signatory to the cheques in question nor the account holder from which the cheques had been issued. The partnership deed dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-7 in CRM-M-39632-2015) shows that the petitioner was not even the partner of firm M/s K.K.Tanners. Learned counsel further submitted that at one point of time, the petitioner was the partner, but subsequently he retired and this fact was in the knowledge of the respondent-firm which is evident from the civil suit (Annexure P-8 in CRM-M-39632-2015) filed by the respondent against M/s K.K.Tanners and others, in which the petitioner had not been arrayed as a defendant. Thus, this fact also shows that the petitioner has no role to play and he has been falsely implicated in the criminal complaints.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner is a partner of M/s K.K.Tanners and being the partner, he was fully responsible for the day to day work and conduct of the business of the firm and was fully responsible for the dishonour of the cheques. The partnership deed dated 01.10.2009, relied upon by the petitioner, is a forged and fabricated document and merely the petitioner is not one of the defendants in civil suit, does not absolve him of his liability.

10. I have gone through the partnership deed dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-7 in CRM-M-39632-2015) in which petitioner Daya Ram