Karnataka High Court
Smt Vatsala R vs Smt Renuka M on 6 July, 2021
Author: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3147 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. Smt. Vatsala R.,
Aged about 56 years,
W/o. G.Vasudeva,
R/at 419, Sandeepini,
24th Main Road, 25th Cross,
Parangipalya,
HSR Layout, Sector 2,
Bengaluru-560102.
2. Smt. Vatsala P.,
Aged about 62 years,
W/o. M.Guruva Reddy,
R/at 2306, 24th Main,
16th Cross, HSR Layout,
Sector-1, Bengaluru-560102.
3. Sri. M.Sudharshan,
Aged about 63 years,
S/o. L.Muniyappa,
R/at 679, Srinivasa Glass
And Plywood Building,
2nd Floor, 9th Main,
2
7th Sector, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru-560102.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. A.C.Chethan, Advocate)
AND
Smt. Renuka M.,
W/o. Rajesh,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at 6, 2nd Cross,
Opp Royal Shelters
Ramesh Reddy Layout,
Devarachikkanahalli,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru-560068,
Rep. by her GPA holder and father,
Munireddy K.,
S/o. Late Krishnappa Reddy,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at 1587, Begur Road,
Near Rama Temple,
Devarachikkanahalli,
Bengaluru-560076.
...Respondent
(By Sri. C.G.Manjunath, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.3587/2020 which is pending in the court of the
XIX Addl.C.M.M., at Bengaluru in so far as it pertains
to the petitioners.
3
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission,
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioners who are accused no.3, 4 and 5 have
sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.3587/2020
on the file of XIX ACMM, Bengaluru as it pertains to
them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are the partners of Accused no.1 -
Partnership firm viz., M/s Yenvee Financial
Corporation (R). If the entire complaint is read, it
does not indicate that the petitioners were in charge
of the affairs of the firm on the day when the cheque
was issued. They are not signatories to the cheque.
He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and another (AIR 2007 SC 912);
and of this court in the case of M/s Pathi Fabrics
and another Vs. Sri. K.B. Gowri Shankar in
W.P.No.10401/2019. Therefore it is his submission
that since in the complaint there are no specific
allegations against the petitioners, the proceeding
against them in C.C.No.3587/2020 are to be quashed.
3. No doubt according to Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, whenever a Company or
a Partnership firm is made an accused, the Directors
or the Partners of the Company or the Firm, as the
case may be, should be made parties to the case if
they were in charge of the affairs of the Company
when the offence took place. Now in this case, in Para
9 it is stated that accused no.2 to 5 are the working
Partners of the accused - Firm and are in charge of
the conduct of the business and therefore they have
to be prosecuted under Section 138 of N.I.Act. I think
the averment to this effect in the complaint is enough
to bring the whole case within the ambit of Section
141 of N.I. Act. There are no merits in this petition. It
is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
