In a partnership firm, all partners are jointly and severally liable for dishonoured cheques issued under the firm's name, irrespective of individual signatures.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings before the concerned Court in C.C.No.13326/2024 registered for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .

2. Heard Sri. K. Diwakara, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. V. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and Sri. C. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is said to be a partner in the partnership firm. On 08.04.2019, a Memorandum of Understanding is executed between the petitioner, the respondent and another to start a partnership firm. It was reconstituted on 04.02.2021. It is between these two dates the instrument has sprung, instrument i.e., the cheque. The cheque being presented by the respondent - complainant gets dishonoured. The dishonouring of cheque moves the complainant to the concerned Court by registering a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons to the petitioner on 03.04.2024. The petitioner is thus before this Court calling in question the taking of cognizance and issuance of summons.

4. Learned Senior counsel, Sri. K. Diwakara, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheque. In a collateral proceeding where the house of the petitioner was searched, the instruments, the seal and other contemporaneous things were found, which would infer that the complainant has misused the cheque while he was or his wife was a partner with the petitioner and therefore, would submit that the proceedings must not be permitted to be continued against this petitioner, who has nothing to do with the transaction between the other partner or the complainant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri. V. Krishna Murthy, appearing for the complainant would submit that the cheque is issued by the petitioner, which bears the signature of the petitioner, all of which are pending consideration before the concerned Court. In a partnership firm, it is not that one partner can escape the liability notwithstanding the fact that whether they are actively involved in the firm or otherwise.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The partnership firm being constituted, reconstituted, are all again a matter of record. The issue that is brought before the Court is an instrument that gets dishonoured and the complainant registering the complaint.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner tries to project a collateral proceeding with regard to the signatures and the cheque being misused at the hands of the complainant, which has lead the complainant to register a crime against the present petitioner. Insofar as the liability of a partner, signatory or otherwise need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in its latest judgment in DHANASINGH PRABHU v. CHANDRASEKAR , (2025) 10 SCC 96 has considered the issue whether in a partnership firm, the other partner would be liable for dishonor of a cheque equally like that of the partner who has signed the instrument, unlike in a Company where the Apex Court holds that what is necessary to be seen is the role of every director, their involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the Company as they are sometimes termed as non-executive directors who would not be aware of the day-to-day affairs of the Company. Therefore, the Apex Court holds that cases