HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1333 of 2022

04th August, 2025

M/s Dyanamic Aura Llp B-31

and another ……………Applicants

Versus

M/s Sahi Associates …………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This application has been filed by the applicants

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash and set aside the proceedings along with impugned summoning order dated 16.11.2021 in Criminal Case No. 5609 of 2021, “M/s Sahi Associates Vs. M/s Dayanamic Aura LLP and another”, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act), registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil

Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that applicant-firm is a registered firm having GSTIN Number 09AAPFD1121L1ZD engaged in the business of textile production. The applicant-firm entered into a contract with the respondent/complainant-firm for supplying manpower and according to the contract, the respondent/complainant-firm supplied manpower to the applicant-firm in the year 2020. Against the supply of manpower, the respondent/complainant issued a Bill No.2020-21/043 dated 12.08.2020 in the name of the applicant-firm for an amount of ₹34,92,772/-. Out of this amount of ₹34,92,772/-, the applicant/firm issued a Cheque No.035418 dated 20.08.2021 amounting to

₹26,90,887/- drawn on the respondent/complainant-firm Bank Branch at Chandni Chowk, Delhi, duly signed by the presented the said cheque for payment to their bank, the cheque was returned unpaid with remarks "Account Closed" on 08.09.2021. The respondent/complainant sent a demand notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 by registered post on 05.10.2021 to the applicant/firm. Despite the service of the notice, the applicant/firm failed to make payment of the cheque amount due to the respondent/complainant. On this the respondent/complainant filed a Criminal Case No. 5609 of 2021, “M/s Sahi Associates Vs. M/s Dayanamic Aura LLP and another”, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 before learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. The learned Judge issued summons to the accused-applicant for trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 vide order dated 16.11.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, because he was not “in charge of” or responsible for the company’s business when the cheque was issued, and he did not sign the cheque. The law requires clear evidence of personal involvement or responsibility to hold a partner or director liable. As a partner or director – applicant enjoys protection from liability unless specific proof shows he is/was authorized or was responsible for the offence. The respondent/complaint fails to establish a prima facie case against the applicant, making the continuation of proceedings unjustified at this stage. Continuing proceedings without adequate grounds would lead to unnecessary harassment and abuse of legal process.

submits that applicant’s claim that he was not "in charge" of the company at the time of the alleged offence is a factual defense that must be examined during trial and is not a ground to quash the case at this stage. The complaint names the applicant alongside the company under Section 141 of the N.I. Act, 1881 which holds those responsible for the company’s conduct deemed to be liable. Although the applicant denies responsibility and points to another individual signing the cheque, his role as a partner or director creates a prima facie case of vicario