1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.978 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1.

Mr. Ramachandraiah K.R.,

S/o. Ramaiah,

Aged about 47 years,

No.1, 5^th Cross,

Vijayalakshmi Layout,

Nagasandra Post,

Bagalakunte, Bengaluru-73.

2.

Leelavathi,

W/o. Ramachandraiah K.R.,

Aged about 39 years,

No.1, 5^th Cross,

Vijayalakshmi Layout,

Nagasandra Post,

Bagalakunte, Bengaluru-73.

&Petitioners

(By Sri Parameshwar N Hegde, Advocate)

AND

M/s. Anjanadri Developers,

A Partnership Firm,

Having its Office at No.30,

1^st Floor, K.R.Layout,

2

5^th Cross, 6^th Phase, J.P.Nagar,

Bengaluru 3 78.

Represented by its Partners,

1. L.R.Vijayashankar Rao,

2. C.Sudhakar Naidu,

3. Raghavendra,

4. L.Aruna.

&Respondent

(By Smt. C.R.Prathima, Advocate)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the entire proceedings in

C.C.No.11118/2020

registered

for

the

offence

punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and Pending on

the file of the 38^th ACMM, Bengaluru.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this

day through video conferencing, the Court made the

following:

ORDER

Heard Sri Parameshwar N Hegde, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Smt. C.R.Prathima, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2.

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Petitioners who are accused No.2 and 3, have sought to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11118/2020 on the file

3

of the XXXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru, initiated under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.

It is the argument of Sri Parameshwar N

Hegde, learned counsel that the petitioners 1 and 2 are

are the partners of the first accused partnership firm.

The cheque in question was signed by accused No.4.

These petitioners were not at all responsible for the

cheque being dishonored. In the complaint, there are

no allegations against the petitioners that they were in-

charge of the affairs of the partnership firm and

therefore in accordance with Section 141 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint as against the

petitioners cannot be maintained. In support of his

arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of SABITHA RAMAMURTHY

AND ANOTHER VS. R.B.S.CHANNABASAVARADHYA

[(2006)1 SCC 581] and in the case of PEPSI FOODS

4

LTD.,

AND

ANOTHER

VS.

SPECIAL

JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS [(1998)5 SCC 749].

4.

Smt. C.R.Prathima, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the petitioners being the

partners of the first accused partnership firm have

signed the memorandum of understanding in connection

with development of the land. At the time when this

transaction took place, they were very much partners

and even now also they are partners. In para 5 of the

complaint it is very specifically stated that accused No.1

represented by its partners i.e., accused No.2 and 3

entered into a joint development agreement in respect

of the property. Therefore, it is her argument that this

is enough to show that the petitioners were in-charge of

the business of the first accused partnership firm. The

cheque might have been signed by the accused No.4 on

behalf of the company, but it does not mean that these

petitioners cannot be prosecuted.

5

5.

Having heard both the sides, it is to be stated

that, it is true whenever a complaint is lodged against a

company or a partnership firm, its directors or the

partners should be made as accused in the complaint, if

at the time when the transaction took place they were

in-charge of the firm or the company. There cannot be

any doubt with regard to that position of law.

6.

If the complaint is read what becomes clear is

that, though the complaint has not stated in a specific

word or sentence that the petitioners were also in-

charge of the partnership firm i.e., accused No.1 at th