IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that partners of a firm can be held vicariously liable for the dishonour of a cheque if they are actively involved in the day-to-day business of the firm, as per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein who were arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.2333 of 2021 pending on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Heard Sri A.Ram Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms.Shreya, learned counsel representing Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Initially the second respondent instituted C.C.No.51 of 2014 on the file of VI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, which subsequently was transferred to the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad where it was numbered as C.C.No.2333 of 2021, which proceedings are now sought for quashing.

4. The very institution of the said case by the second respondent herein was because of the action of the petitioners herein who were partners of the first accused – firm in issuing a cheque in the name of the firm and its consequent dishonour.

The facts in nutshell are that the second respondent is doing industrial copper wire business in the name and style of M/s.Pawan Electricals. M/s. Apex Weld Industries, a partnership firm was being run by three persons viz, Faiyaz Ahmed, Sattar Ahmed and Mukaram and they used to purchase material from the second respondent firm regularly on credit basis and were holding a running account with the second respondent firm. During the course of business, the petitioners and another being the partners of their firm M/s. Apex Weld Industries purchased industrial copper wire and became due an amount of Rs.2,55,598/- as on 29.09.2010. Upon persuasion for payment of the above amount, on behalf of the firm, the accused No.2, issued a cheque bearing No.289302 for Rs.1.00 lakh drawn on Axis Bank, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad towards part payment of the outstanding amount. Thereupon, the second respondent deposited the said cheque in his bank for encashment on 19.03.2013 and 28.05.2013, but the same was returned unpaid by the bankers of the petitioners with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. However, on request of the accused the second respondent once again presented the said cheque on 08.06.2013, but the result was the same. Hence, the second respondent got issued a demand legal notice on 24.06.2013 posted on 25.0.2013, but the same was returned by the postal authority with an endorsement ‘left’ on 27.06.2013. Therefore, having no other alternative to recover the amount from the accused, the second respondent lodged a private complaint before the trial Court under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pendency of which proceedings are impugned in this criminal petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent has not furnished the correct address and particulars of the petitioners in the cause title. However, it is his predominant contention that the alleged transaction was between the second respondent and accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the firm and the first partner and that the cheque was duly signed by the second accused on behalf of the first accused being the authorized signatory; the complaint is lacking the allegations that the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.3 and 4 were involved in the day to day business of the firm. By relying on the ratio laid down in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inasmuch as there was no averment in the complaint that the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.2 and 3 were part of the day to day business of the first accused, as contemplated under Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the complaint insofar as the present petitioners is concerned, is not maintainable.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent co