IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10844 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2022 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ======================================================

Bablu Kumar, S/o- Sri Ram Sundar Sah Village- Dhanwati Po- Dhanwati Ps-

Charpokhari Dist- Bhojpur,A/p- W.NO- 12, Piro Ps- Piro Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Raj Kishor Singh, son of Moarika Singh R/o- Near Ashok Cinema Hall Bihiya Road Ps- Piro Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Cr. Revision No.92 of 2022 by which the order taking cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act dated 19.05.2022 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ara, in Complaint Case No.429(C) of 2022 was set aside and the revision petition filed by the opposite party no.2 was allowed.

3. The facts giving rise to the present complaint application is that petitioner had sold paddy to the opposite party no.2, who is the owner of Durga Rice Mill, Hasan Bazar, Bhojpur and the opposite party no. 2 had given a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner on 28.12.2021, but the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. It is alleged that when the petitioner informed the opposite party no.2 about the same, he did not give a satisfactory reply and then petitioner sent a legal demand notice through his lawyer on 10.03.2022, complying with the mandatory provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but the opposite party no.2 neither responded to the notice nor made any payment. In such a situation, the petitioner filed a Complaint Case No.429(C) of 2022.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint and the documents on record and after examination of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 19.05.2022, took cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”).

5. The said order taking cognizance was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Rev. NO.92 of 2022 and the learned Sessions Judge by the order impugned set aside the order of cognizance and allowed the revision application on the ground that the concerned firm, Durga Ji Rice Mill, has not been made a party by the complainant/petitioner and in the absence of the said party, this case cannot be proceeded.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application challenging the said revisional order is primarily on the ground that the learned Revisional Court has erred in holding that “if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time of the offence was committed, was in-charge of and was responsibe to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly”.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge, who was hearing the revision application, has quoted Section 141 of the NI Act in coming to the finding that the order taking cognizance was bad, as the same was taken against the person and the complainant has not made Durga Ji Rice Mills as a party and as the mill itself has not been made a party, the case would not proceed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Durga Ji Mills is a proprietorship firm and the opposite party no.2 is the owner of the said firm and