HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA CRIMINAL PETITION 53 OF 2024

1. SRI ARUN KUMAR DEY (aged about 59 years), Son of late Biraj Mohan Dey, resident of Arundhuti Nagar, Police Line, P.O. A.D. Nagar-799003, P.S. A.D. Nagar, District-West Tripura.

2. SRI TARUN KUMAR SAHA (aged about 58 years), Son of late Haran Chandra Saha, resident of Milann Chakra, P.O.A.D. Nagar-799003, P.S. A. D. Nagar, District-West Tripura. 3. SMT. SARASWATI PAUL (aged about 55 years), wife of late Bijoy Krishna Paul, resident of Champaknagar, P.O. Birendranagar-

799045, P.S. Jirania, District-West Tripura.

4. SMT. MINAKSHI PAUL (aged about 39 years), daughter of late Bijoy Krishna Paul, resident of Champaknagar, P.O. Birendranagar-

799045, P.S. Jirania, District-West Tripura.

5. SRI MILTAN PAUL (aged about 34 years), son of late Bijoy Krishna Paul, resident of Champaknagar, P.O. Birendranagar-

799045, P.S. Jirania, District-West Tripura.

---Petitioners.

Versus

1. SRI BISWAJIT GUHA S/o late Bimal Chandra Guha, resident of 128/4A, Hazra Road, Kolkata, P.S. Bhavanipur, Pin-700026, West Bengal.

2. THE STATE OF TRIPURA.

---Respondents.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.

Date of Argument : 20.09.2025 Date of delivery of Judgment and Order : 12.12.2025 YES NO Whether fit for reporting :



J UDGMENT & ORDER The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 alon g with another Bijoy Krishna Paul, the predecessor of petitioner Nos. 3, 4 & 5 filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the present respondent No.1 alleging dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees seventy five lakhs) issued in favour of M/s Ramthakur Bricks Company. It is also alleged that the said cheque was issued by said respondent No.1 on behalf of ‘VIDA Engineering Company Ltd.’

2. The complaint on being transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, the said Court took cognizance of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.06.2019 and issued summons to him fixing the next date for appearance of the said accused-respondent No.1 and also for his examination under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short, the Code].

3. Later on, the respondent No.1 appeared and he was released on bail. He thereafter filed an application on 22.06.2022 praying for his discharge from the case challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that he was not a managing partner of said ‘VIDA Engineering Company Ltd.’, rather, he was the sole proprietor of the same and in said company there is no existence of any such partnership. He also took the plea that in the year 2013 a cheque book containing some signed cheques were lost from his office located at Belonia. Therefore, the matter was duly informed to the bank authority with a request to close the account. He also asserted that there was no relation or no correspondence, no documents exchanged between the parties and no purchase order was ever issued by him to the complainant or to their Firm to procure any brick.

4. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties on the said petition finally allowed the same on 03.12.2024 holding that without impleading the juristic person i.e. ‘VIDA Engineering Company Ltd.’, the respondent No.1 could not be prosecuted and therefore, he was discharged.

5. The said order dated 03.12.2024, passed in related NI 51 of 2018, is challenged by the petitioners in this criminal petition, mainly on two grounds-- Firstly, that after cognizance of offence was taken by the learned trial Court and process was issued, the said Court had no jurisdiction to discharge the accused without exhausting the procedure contained in Chapter XX of the Code; and secondly, that there is no requirement at law for impleading the Company as accused in the case.

6. Notice upon the respondent No.1 was served through paper publication, but he did not appear.