O R D E R

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive relief:-

“(i) Quash the complaint qua the petitioners in case No. 113-3 of 2013 (Annexure P-1) titled M/s Kayy Bee Sons Vs M/s Ross Robinz Biotech pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No, 1, Solan, H.P. alongwith summoning order dated 26.08.2013 and all proceedings ensuing thereof.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were inducted as partners of respondent No. 2-partnership firm, on 10th of February, 2011. The complaint, which has been instituted against them and other respondents, copy whereof stands appended with the present petition as Annexure P-1, pertains purportedly to a liability of the said partnership firm, which was pertaining to the period prior to the date of their induction as partners, and in this view of the matter, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 31 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the proceedings, which have been initiated against the present petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are per se bad in law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside as far as the petitioners are concerned.

3. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused can be tried provided he is guilty of violating the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submitted that here is a case, wherein a cheque was issued on behalf of the partnership firm, i.e. respondent No. 2, pertaining to a liability thereof relatable to a period when the petitioners were not partners of the partnership firm, and in this view of the matter, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that because the cheque which was issued by one of the partners of the partnership firm stood dishonoured, the present petitioners also are liable to be prosecuted for the said act. He has relied upon Section 31(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and submitted that the provisions thereof make it crystal clear that a person who is introduced as a partner into a firm does not thereby become liable for any act of the firm done before he became a partner and in view of said statutory provision also the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 16.03.2019, passed by learned Court below, appended with the petition as Annexure P-6 and fairly stated that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Court below, a prayer was made by the petitioners for their discharge but said prayer was rejected in terms of the order which has been passed vide Annexure P-6, perusal whereof would demonstrate that rejection of the prayer of the petitioners was not on merit but on technical grounds wherein learned Court held that it has no power to discharge the accused. In the course of his submissions, Mr. Sharma also referred to Annexure P-2, which is the copy of partnership deed vide which the petitioners were inducted as partners into the partnership firm dated 10th February, 2011, and by referring to the provisions thereof in general and Clause 15 in particular, he submitted that it was clearly mentioned in the said deed also that the petitioners shall not be responsible for any liability, responsibility and accountability of third party regarding the business activities as they are not working partners. On these grounds, it stands prayed that the petition be allowed and proceedings which were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners be quashed.

4. Opposing the petition, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that filing of the present petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law for the reason that it is apparent from