1. Complaint under Section 138, NI Act — Dishonour of cheque issued by partnership firm — Petitioner sought cognizance against other partners. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 16577
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
[2025:RJ-JP:49373]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6797/2025
Sanjay Gupta S/o Late Shri Narayandutt Gupta, Partner Firm
Modern Machinery Store, R/o Heera Ice Factory, Old Barakhana
Road, Station Road, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Ramkishore Gupta S/o Shri Harishchand, R/o Mohalla
Khadaana Road No. 2, Near Mahatma Gandhi Market,
Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mohit Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit Gupta
For the Respondents: Amit Punia, PP
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit Gupta
For the Respondents: Amit Punia, PP
A trial court must comply with specific directions from a revisional court regarding the taking of cognizance and cannot reject such prayers on minor technical counts if the order is already on record or clear.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance in Partnership Firm - When a revisional court directs the trial court to consider taking cognizance against other partners of a firm, the trial court cannot reject such a prayer on mere technical grounds such as the non-production of the order on record, especially when the direction was clear and specific. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in declining the prayer for taking cognizance against other partners on technical grounds despite directions from the revisional court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences involving property
- cheque dishonour (Para 3)
-
offences involving property
- practice and procedure
- commercial law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued that all partners are jointly liable; trial court declined cognizance against other partners despite revisional court's direction. (Para 3 )
3. Magistrate failed to comply with revisional court's specific direction to pass order on cognizance against other partners. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Judicial officer must peruse and comply with revisional court's directions, not decline on technical grounds. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to Magistrate to pass fresh order in light of revisional court's direction. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Is a Magistrate obliged to comply with a revisional court's specific direction regarding cognizance?
Yes, it is the duty of the Magistrate to peruse the revisional order and pass an appropriate order accordingly. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Can a Magistrate decline to follow a revisional court's direction on a technical ground like absence of a copy of the order on record?
No, the Magistrate must peruse the revisional order and comply; declining on such a technical count is improper. (Para 5 , 6 )
Order
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 2, Alwar by which the prayer made by the petitioner for taking cognizance against the other partners of the Firm-Modern Machinery Store has been declined.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, however the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 04.08.2025.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was submitted by the complainant respondent against the Firm Modern Machinery Store and the petitioner. Counsel submits that the Firm Modern Machinery Store is a partnership firm wherein apart from the petitioner there are other partners and the cheque in question was issued under joint liability on behalf of the aforesaid partnership firm, hence each and every other partner of the firm is liable to be implicated in the said complaint. Counsel submit that when the cognizance was taken alone against the petitioner and the partnership firm alone, a prayer was made by the petitioner for taking cognizance against the other partners as well and for that purpose, he filed a revision petition No. 109/2023 before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar and the same was partly allowed on 16.11.2023 and a direction was issued to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to the cognizance against rest of the partners of the Firm Modern Machinery Store. Counsel further submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, argument was raised by the petitioner before the trial Court for taking cognizance against rest of the partners. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was not entertained on a technical count that no such order has been passed by the revisional Court and no copy of the said order has been placed on record. Thereafter, no direction was issued for taking cognizance against the rest of the partners. Counsel submits that the order dated 16.11.2023 was clear and specific but the same was not complied with by the learned Magistrate, hence interference of this Court is warranted.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that once the revisional Court has passed the order dated 16.11.2023 by issuing certain directions to the trial Court to proceed further with the matter for taking cognizance against the other partners of the Firm Modern Machinery Store, it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to peruse the aforesaid order and pass an appropriate order, but instead of doing so, the prayer of the petitioner was declined on a technical count that no such material was produced on record. It appears that the Magistrate has not perused the order dated 16.11.2023 while passing the impugned order dated 22.07.2024.
6. On this count, the order dated 22.07.2024 stands quashed and set aside. As a consequence thereof, the order passed by the revisional Court order dated 04.08.2025 also stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate with exception to pass fresh order in the light of the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar expeditiously as early as possible, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.
7. The present criminal misc. petition stands allowed, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
