- 1 –Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004644

$-

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

+

CRL.M.C. 5248/2022

Between:-

SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH

S/O SH. MURKHILYA SINGH

R/O VILL. SAWARI GAWAS,

RUDRAPRAYAG, (UTTRAKHAND)

.....PETITIONER NO.1

SH. PUSHKAR SINGH

S/O SH. HARI SINGH

R/O LADONI,

RUDRAPRAYAG, (UTTARAKHAND)

.....PETITIONER NO.2

AND

ALLIED BLENDERS & DISTILLERS PVT. LTD.

B-12 9, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I,

SUMANPURI, SAHASHRADHARA ROAD

DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND

..... RESPONDENT

+

CRL.M.C. 5249/2022

Between:-

SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH

S/O SH. MURKHILYA SINGH

R/O VILL. SAWARI GAWAS,

RUDRAPRAYAG, (UTTRAKHAND)

.....PETITIONER NO.1

SH. PUSHKAR SINGH

S/O SH. HARI SINGH

Digitally Signed

By:PRIYA

Signing Date:04.11.2022

11:55:43

Signature Not Verified

- 2 –Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004644

R/O LADONI,

RUDRAPRAYAG, (UTTARAKHAND)

.....PETITIONER NO.2

MANVENDRA SINGH

S/O SHRI JAIKRITSINGH

R/O VILL. DEVAR KHANDORA,

THANE CHAMOLI, (UTTRAKHAND)

.....PETITIONER NO.3

MUKESH ASWAL

S/O SH. RAJENDERA SINGH ASWAL,

R/O VILL. SINJI SIROW,

CHAMOLI, (UTTRAKHAND)

.....PETITIONER NO.4

AND

ROCK AND STORM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.

A-62/4, FIRST FLOOR, G.T. KARNAL ROAD,

INDUSTRIAL AREA,

AZADPUR, DELHI-110033

..... RESPONDENT

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

%

Pronounced on

:

31.10.2022

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

J U D G M E N T

1. These two petitions involve similar issue, therefore, the same

are being decided by this common order. The facts are taken from

CRL.M.C. 5248/2022.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits

that the impugned order of summoning is in ignorance of the settled

legal position, inasmuch as, the court below has failed to consider that

no specific averments have been made with respect to the present

petitioners as to how they are responsible for the day-to-day

functioning of the partnership firm. While placing reliance on various

Digitally Signed

By:PRIYA

Signing Date:04.11.2022

11:55:43

Signature Not Verified

- 3 –Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004644

pleadings and documents, it has been submitted that the present

petitioners are not responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the

accused firm and, therefore, the order of summoning suffers from

legal infirmity. According to her, the cheque in question had been

drawn and issued by partners, namely, Basant Bhandari and Rajeev

Pratap and was not issued by the petitioners. The ingredients of

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, „the NI

Act‟) are therefore not fulfilled. Section 138 of the NI Act does not

speak about the joint liability. Section 141 of NI Act does not make all

partners liable for the offence. Criminal liability would fasten on those

who, at the time of commission of offence, were in charge and were

responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the firm. It is

further stated that it is very much in the knowledge of the respondent

that no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners in view of the

supplementary partnership deed dated 01.05.2018 and agreement

dated 28.06.2018. The present petitioners have been unnecessarily

arrayed in the complaint. The reliance is placed on the decisions of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah

and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.¹and Dilip Hariramani v. Bank

of Baroda².

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners and perused the record.

4. The petitioners are arrayed as respondents in the compliant as

accused Nos.15 and 16, respectively. A perusal of complaint indicates

that the complainant in paragraph No.2, thereof, had stated that the

accused No.