Petitioner Who Proved that He Wasn’t a Partner in Accused Firm Couldn’t Be Impleaded as Accused in Cheque Bounce Case

Case Details: Tushar Sharma v. Graphic Advertising - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 284 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
  • Rohit Gaur, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • Rakesh Malhotra, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the complainant supplied graphic designs to the accused company. Against the supply, a balance of Rs.1.41 lakh remained due. In the discharge of the same, the accused firm issued a cheque. However, when presented for encashment, the said cheque was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Consequently, a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed. The complaint stated that one ‘H’ and petitioner were authorized signatories/proprietors/partners/deemed and real owners/officials of the said accused firm. The Trial court took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons against all three accused including the petitioner.

It was noted that apart from bald averment made in the complaint as well as during the course of submissions that the petitioner was deemed owner of the firm, no other evidence had been produced/placed on record to show that the petitioner was deemed/real owner or that he was in charge or responsible for the business of firm at the time of the commission of an offence.

On the other hand, the petitioner had placed on record a certificate of acknowledgement of registration from the Deputy Registrar of the firm. The said document nowhere shows the petitioner as a partner in the said firm.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that a perusal of the complaint would show that the cheque was issued on account of the firm and was signed by one ‘H’ and not the petitioner. Thus, it could be seen that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was a partner of the firm or that he was a signatory of the cheque.

The High Court held that in the absence of any such evidence to bring the petitioner within the fold of section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, forcing the petitioner to stand trial solely based on a bald averment that was unsubstantiated, would amount to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the summoning order as well as the complaint against the petitioner was to be quashed.