The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of vicarious liability principles in determining the liability of officers of a company in respect of dishonour of a cheque.

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing of complaints filed under Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as NI Act), summoning orders as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. While in CRM-M-1055-2016, the subject matter i.e. complaint No. 8495 dated 27.11.2015 along with summoning order dated 30.11.2015; whereas in CRM-M-1894-2016 it is complaint No. 8497 dated 27.11.2015, besides the summoning order dated 30.11.2015.

2. Facts giving rise to the abovesaid complaints are similar and have been taken from CRM-M-1055-2016 involving complaint No. 8495 dated 27.11.2015, tilted as “Rajpal Bansal Vs. M/s Chadha Motors and others”. In the complaint, it has been alleged that accused no.1 is a partnership concern and accused nos.2 to 5 are the partners who are actively participating in its affairs being responsible for all acts and conduct of business of the same on day to day basis; accused nos.2 to 5 being known to the complainant approached him in the month of April 2014 and represented that because of recession and down fall in the sale of cars, they were in dire need of financial assistance. Induced by the representations made by the accused, the complainant released a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and on insistent demands about its return, the accused issued cheque no. 205503 dated 20.10.2015 in order to discharge the legally enforceable liability.

3. The above said cheque when presented was returned unpaid by the bank with the remarks "Funds Insufficient"; despite receipt of the demand notice dated 29.10.2015, the accused failed to make the payment resulting into filing of complaint dated 27.11.2015, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before JMIC, Ludhiana followed by summoning order dated 30.11.2015. Similarly, in CRM-M-1894-2016, complaint No.8497 dated 27.11.2015, tilted as M/s Raj Soap & Detergents Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chadha Motors and Ors.”, relates to cheque no 206424 dated 20.20.2015 for Rs.40,00,000/-, presented for encashment on 08.10.2015 which was returned unpaid on 21.10.2015 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point in time, the petitioner happened to be a student and whenever the father of the petitioner was to go abroad for business dealings, she used to appoint her as authorized signatory. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was merely a signatory to the cheques and not a partner in the firm as alleged by the complainant/ respondent. He further submits that the averments were also incomplete as to how the petitioner was incharge and responsible for the act and conduct of the firm, specifically under the circumstance when she was not a partner and merely a signatory on few of the cheques issued by the partnership firm. Another argument which has been professed is that from the contents of the complaints, it can be figured out that the respondent/ complainant was doing the business of money lending to the public at large, however, as it was not a registered money lender, thus, in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 complaint filed on its behalf was not maintainable.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner being drawee of the cheques on account of being authorized signatory was actively involved in the affairs of the firm and even otherwise, there were categoric averments in the complaint to this effect, thus responsible for the act and conduct of its business. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was made authorized signatory for the cheques on 20.12.2013 by Mr. Sumesh Chadha who was the Managing Director of the partnership firm; whereas the authorization was withdrawn in December 2015, while the cheques in question were issued in October 2015, and therefore, she being the authorized signatory at the relevant period in time, cann