A common order passed by the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in a bunch of Criminal Petitions is under challenge in the present appeals. Vide aforesaid order, the High Court allowed the Petitions filed by the respondents herein and quashed the Criminal Order Dated 14.03.2022. All the cheques were dishonoured by the bank with a return memo stating the reason therein as ‘Funds Insufficient.’ Subsequently, the appellant no.1, issued a written notice dated 09.12.2019 to the respondent no.3 under Section 138 of the NI Act, calling upon the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 filed similar Criminal Complaints (Total 22 Complaints) against the respondents. Appellant No.2 in the present appeal is Rahat Bawri. Aggrieved by initiation of proceedings in the criminal complaints, the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2, filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the summoning order and the criminal complaints filed against them.
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondent no.1 had asserted before the High Court that during the period when cheques in question were issued, he had already resigned from the partnership firm, for which a notice was duly issued. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that though, initially his client was a partner in the firm, however, at the time when the cheques were issued by the respondent no.3, he had already resigned from the partnership firm vide Retirement Deed dated 01.04.2018, thus, making him face the trial, would amount to misuse of the process of law. 001412 10.05.2019 1,54,037/-
Rahat Bawri 2. 001428 25.05.2019 94,500/- Rahat Bawri (HUF) 3. 001414 30.05.2019 1,54,037/-
Payal Bansal 9. 001418
10.07.2019 1,45,152/- Rahat Bawri 11. 001420 30.07.2019 1,38,802/- Payal Bansal 14. 001419 20.07.2019 1,45,152/- Riya Bawri 15.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/time-as-essence-of-contract-in-sale-agreement-legal-analysis/
It was at this stage that the respondents no.1 and.2 filed petitions before the High Court praying for quashing of the summoning order and the complaints filed against them. The plea raised by the respondent no.1 for seeking quashing of the proceedings before the High Court was that on the dates when the cheques were issued for discharging the liability for payment of rent for the premises taken by the respondent no.3, he had already retired from the firm and a Retirement Deed in that regard was executed on 01.04.2018.
18
The specific allegations made against the accused in the complaint, including the respondent no.1, were that they were in- charge of and were responsible for the affairs of the respondent no.3 firm, for conduct of the business affairs of the firm. In our opinion, the plea taken by the respondent no.1 seeking quashing of the summoning order and the complaints filed against him was not tenable, for the reason that, it would be a matter of evidence to be proved before the trial Court, as to whether any Retirement Deed was issued and a public notice concerning the same was issued, before the complaints were filed. Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that 12 the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques. ………………….
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/retirement-age-of-pti-sports-officer-in-university/
J (HIMA KOHLI)…………………..J (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi August 23, 2023
Case Title: RIYA BAWRI ETC. ETC. Vs. MARK ALEXANDER DAVIDSON
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002510-002552 / 2023
