In a criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a partnership firm, partners are jointly and severally liable. Consequently, the compounding of the offence by one partner discharges the liability of the entire partnership firm, precluding the continuation of criminal proceedings against any other partner.

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed against the Order dated 02.07.2019 of the learned ACMM whereby Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 filed by the Complainant in respect of dishonor of cheque of Rs.50 Lacs against the partners/Partnership Firm, was compounded qua one of the Partner/Sant Lal Aggarwal, on receiving of Rs.25 Lacs from him, but continued against the second Partner/ Petitioner.

2. Aggrieved by the said Order of partial compounding, present Petition has been filed to challenge the partial compounding on the assertion that the liability of the two accused/ partners of the Partnership Firm (unregistered) was joint and several and thus, should not have been permitted. Quashing of the Complaint is therefore, sought by the Petitioner against himself in terms of compounding of the offence being the Partner of the Firm.

3. Briefly stated, Respondent No.2/Mr. Anup Kuma, Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), who is in the business of investment in Shares and Rental Properties, was approached by Respondent No.4 Mr. Sant Lal Aggarwal, on behalf of Respondent No.3/M/s Jagat Overseas (unregistered Partnership Firm) for providing a friendly loan. Because of their cordial relations, he acceded to their request and extended a friendly loan of Rs.50,00,000/- and transferred the money through RTGS No. 033519 to the account of Respondent No.3. In order to secure the loan, Respondent No.2, Mr. Sant Lal Aggarwal, Partner of M/S Jagat Overseas, executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 20.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and a Receipt acknowledging having received Rs.50,00,000/- from Respondent No.2/Complainant, in addition to a posted date Cheque in the same amount. The Respondents agreed that the loan amount shall be repaid as and when demanded by Respondent No.2 and also agreed to pay interest @9% per annum till repayment of the whole amount.

4. Respondent No.3/M/s Jagat Overseas, in its Letter dated 31.03.2015, admitted it legal liability to make the payment to the Respondent No.2 and also requested for extension of time period for repayment, to which the Respondent No.2 agreed vide Letter dated 18.04.2015 subject to certain conditions and specifically stated that if the dues are not paid, the post-dated Cheque shall be shall be presented for realization.

5. The Cheque was presented for payment on 06.04.2015, but was dishonoured with the Return Memo “Insufficient Funds”. Respondent No.2 sent a Legal Notice dated 10.07.2015 to Respondent No.3/M/s Jagat Overseas and its Partners, Mr. Sant Lal Aggarwal and Mr. Satish Kumar Pawa, but they failed to discharge their liability.

6. Respondent No.2 thus, filed a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Petitioner and Respondents No.3 & 4.

7. Learned Metro