ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in STC.No.09 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Heard Sri V.Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as notice was not served on the partnership firm and that the petitioner is not at all liable for prosecution and thus, continuation of proceedings against him would be abuse of process of law. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that it is not a company but it is a partnership firm and notice was served against the drawer of the cheque and that the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed as the petitioner herein had failed to respond to the said notice and failed to make the payment due under the cheque and that there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings and that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount due under the cheque. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is well acquainted with the accused since a long time and that the accused has approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.10,50,000/- to meet his family necessities and thus, out of the said acquaintance, he has paid the same and the accused failed to return the amount and on his request, he has issued a post-dated cheque in the name of his firm M/s.Good Life Group of Business for which the accused is the sole proprietor. The cheque bearing Nos.468916 and 468918 were issued for amounts of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000 respectively. On presenting the same, the cheques were dishonoured. Hence, statutory notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, due to non-compliance of the said notice, the present complaint came to be filed.

7. The contention of the learned petitioner’s counsel is that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act unless the firm is served with a notice and that the firm of the petitioner i.e., M/s.Good life Group of Business is not served with notice in this case and therefore, the present complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not maintainable against the petitioner herein. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in DHANASINGH PRABHU Vs. CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER, (2025) 10 Supreme Court Cases 96.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that since it is a partnership firm, no separate notice will be served on the firm and that the notice on the drawer himself is sufficient to meet the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MAINUDDIN ABDUL SATTAR SHAIKH Vs. VIJAY D.SALVI, (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 622 wherein, Para 13 of the judgment reads as under:-

“13. Thus, in the light of the position which the respondent in the present case held, we are of the view that the respondent be made liable under Section 138 of the NI Act, even though the Company had not been named in the notice or the complaint. There was no necessity for the appellant to prove that the said respondent was in charge of the affairs of the Company, by virtue of the position he held. Thus, we hold that the respondent Vijay D.Salvi is liable for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.”

9. The Apex Court has clarified this point very clearly in its decision rendered in Dhanasingh Prabhu (ci