Criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against partners/directors who have formally resigned and notified statutory authorities prior to the issuance of a cheque are liable to be quashed if the complaint contains only omnibus allegations and lacks specific averments regarding their direct role at the material time.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the complaint No. NACT-209 of 2022 dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘M/s Pehalwan Trading Company vs. M/s Durga Rice Mills and others’ under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the summoning order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, vide which petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Act along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused namely Robin Batra the working partner/authorized signatory of the accused partnership concern M/s Durga Rice Mills of which accused Nos.3 & 4 (including petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the complaint) are the other partners, issued a Cheque No.226425 dated 04.04.2022 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant’s firm M/s Pehwalan Trading Company.

3. The aforementioned cheque got dishonoured leading to the issuance of a legal notice. On non-payment of the amount, a complaint was filed under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The copy of the complaint dated 12.07.2022 is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.

4. Based on the preliminary evidence led, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tarn Taran summoned all the accused to face trial vide order dated 12.07.2022. The copy of the summoning order dated 12.07.2022 is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.

5. The aforementioned complaint dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) are under challenge in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were earlier, the partners in the accused firm M/s Durga Rice Mills which was constituted under a Partnership Deed dated 25.09.2017. However, subsequently, the partnership was dissolved on 21.06.2020 and a written dissolution deed was prepared between the petitioners and the other partner namely Robin Batra in which it was duly mentioned that Robin Batra along with the petitioners who were carrying on the business of purchase, sale and husking of paddy and rice in the name and style of M/s Durga Rice Mills at Fazilka were exiting from the partnership and therefore, the dissolution deed dated 22.06.2020 duly signed by the continuing partner Robin Batra as well as retiring partners Ravi Kumar and Surinder Kumar (petitioners) was prepared. A written information of the dissolution was also sent to the Register of Firms maintained under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act. After the dissolution of the partnership between the petitioners and Robin Batra, Robin Batra entered into a partnership deed with Mona Rani on 22.06.2020. The cheque is dated 22.03.2022 and was signed by Robin Batra on behalf of the accused No.1-M/s Durga Rice Mills. The petitioners had duly responded to the legal notice apprising the complainant that they had got no concern with M/s Durga Rice Mills having exited from the partnership. Despite the said fact having been brought to the notice of the complainant, the petitioners were still arrayed as accused in the complaint and they have been summoned to face trial. He contends that the Directors/Partners who cease to remain so which fact has been duly communicated to the statutory authorities and against whom in the complaint no specific allegations have been levelled regarding the role played by them cannot be summoned to face trial. Therefore, the instant complaint dated 12.