1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.899 OF 2008 1 M/s. Bora Transport Company A Partnership firm through its partners Manoj Madanlal Bora and Dilip Madanlal Bora having its registered office at : 156-B, Ganesh Peth, Pune- 411 002 2 Manoj Madanlal Bora Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Business 3 Smt. Saroj Manoj Bora Age: 39 yrs., Occ; Housewife 4 Shri Dilip Madanlal Bora Age: 47 yrs., Occ: Business 5 Smt. Sonal Dilip Bora Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Housewife 6 Smt. Suman Madanlal Bora Age: 69 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/at: Bhushan, 50, Mukund, Nagar, Swargate, Pune- 411 037 ...Petitioners. v/s. 1 Shri Champalal B. Oswal Age: Adult, R/at: Karjat, Tal: Karjat, Dist. Raigad, 2 State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. 2 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.900 OF 2008 1 M/s. Bora Transport Company A Partnership firm through its partners Manoj Madanlal Bora and Dilip Madanlal Bora having its registered office at : 156-B, Ganesh Peth, Pune- 411 002 2 Manoj Madanlal Bora Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Business 3 Smt. Saroj Manoj Bora Age: 39 yrs., Occ; Housewife 4 Shri Dilip Madanlal Bora Age: 47 yrs., Occ: Business 5 Smt. Sonal Dilip Bora Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Housewife 6 Smt. Suman Madanlal Bora Age: 69 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/at: Bhushan, 50, Mukund, Nagar, Swargate, Pune- 411 037 ...Petitioners. v/s. 1 Sou. Varsha Rajesh Oswal Age: Adult, R/at: Karjat, Tal: Karjat, Dist. Raigad, 2 State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. 3 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.176 OF 2008 1 M/s. Bora Transport Company A Partnership firm through its partners Manoj Madanlal Bora and Dilip Madanlal Bora having its registered office at : 156-B, Ganesh Peth, Pune- 411 002 2 Manoj Madanlal Bora Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Business 3 Smt. Saroj Manoj Bora Age: 39 yrs., Occ; Housewife 4 Shri Dilip Madanlal Bora Age: 47 yrs., Occ: Business 5 Smt. Sonal Dilip Bora Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Housewife 6 Smt. Suman Madanlal Bora Age: 69 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/at: Bhushan, 50, Mukund, Nagar, Swargate, Pune- 411 037 ...Petitioners. v/s. 1 Sou. Rita Ashok Oswal Age: Adult, R/at: Mahavir Peth, Tal: Karjat, Dist. Raigad, 2 State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. 4 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.902 OF 2008 1 M/s. Bora Transport Company A Partnership firm through its partners Manoj Madanlal Bora and Dilip Madanlal Bora having its registered office at : 156-B, Ganesh Peth, Pune- 411 002 2 Manoj Madanlal Bora Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Business 3 Smt. Saroj Manoj Bora Age: 39 yrs., Occ; Housewife 4 Shri Dilip Madanlal Bora Age: 47 yrs., Occ: Business 5 Smt. Sonal Dilip Bora Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Housewife 6 Smt. Suman Madanlal Bora Age: 69 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/at: Bhushan, 50, Mukund, Nagar, Swargate, Pune- 411 037 ...Petitioners. v/s. 1 Sou. Lalita Prakash Oswal Age: Adult, R/at: Karjat, Tal: Karjat, Dist. Raigad, 2 State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. 5 Mr. Madhav Jamdar ,adv. For the Petitioners. Mr. Pratap Patil i/by Manoj Kadam, advs. For the Respondent No.1. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP for the R.No.2/State CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Heard. The respondent no.1 in each petition has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioners. Petitioner nos.1 to 6 are accused nos.1 to 6 respectively in each of the complaints. According to the respondent/complainant, accused no.1 is partnership firm and accused nos.2 to 6 were partners of the firm. Complainant had on request of the accused persons deposited certain amounts with the accused nos.1 firm. The accused no.2 Manoj M. Bora had issued cheques for repayment of the said amounts on 12.4.2002, in each case. Though cheques were signed by the accused no.2 alone, all the accused nos.2 to 6 used to run business of the partnership firm. They were responsible for the conduct of the business and, therefore, each of them was responsible for the payment of the amount. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. 6 In spite of notices issued , repayment was not made by the accused, therefore, complaints were filed. 3 The accused persons have filed these petitions for quashing the proceedings mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the accused nos.3,5 and 6, who are ladies, had retired from the partnership firm on 22.6.2001 and from that day onwards, they have no concern with the partnership firm. The transactions in respect of these complaints had taken place in the year 2002 and cheques were issued on 12.4.2002. Notices were issued on 6.11.2002 and complaints were filed on 20.12.2002. Thus, none of these transactions had taken place when the accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 were partners of the firm. Therefore, the proceedings against the accused nos. 3,5 and 6 are liable to be quashed. Secondly, it is contended that the transactions had taken place at Pune, where the accused persons are situated. Cheques were issued at Pune and they were also payable against the account of the firm maintained with the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune Camp Branch, Pune and, therefore, payment was to be made from Pune Branch. In view of this, the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints could be with Pune Court and not with the J.M.F.C., Karjat where the complaints were filed. 4 Petitioner/accused have produced deed of retirement dated 7 22nd June, 2001, which was executed by all the partners. That deed of retirement clearly shows that the accused nos.3 Saroj M. Bora, accused no.5 Sonal D. Bora and accused no.6 Suman Bora had retired from the partnership firm on that day. The petitioners have also produced copy of extract from the register of firms maintained by the Registrar of firms. Said extract also shows that on 8th February, 2002, entry was taken in the register of firms to the effect that accused Suman, Sonal and Saroj had retired from the firm with effect from 22nd June, 2001. From these documents, it is clear that not only these three ladies had retired from the partnership firm on 22nd June, 2001, but entry of their retirement was also taken in the register of firm on 8th February, 2002, i.e. long before the cheques in question were issued. In view of these facts, the complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be filed against these three ladies for non payment of the cheque amount. To that extent proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5 From the complaint, it appears that the accused persons had approached the complainant through his brother with a request to him to deposit amounts with the firm of the accused and accordingly, the complainant deposited different amounts with the firm. The complaint does not specifically state as to where the amount was actually 8 deposited by him. Presuming that the amount was deposited by the complainant with the accused no.1 firm at Pune, still J.M.F.C., Karjat has jurisdiction in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran V. Balan and Another (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510. In K. Bhaskaran, Supreme Court held that following acts are components of the offence under Section 138: "(i) drawing of the cheque; (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank; iii) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; iv) giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice." In the present case, cheques were drawn at Pune. Cheques were presented to the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. for encashment through banker of the complainant situated at Karjat. Cheques were dishonoured at Pune by Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. where the account was being maintained by the accused no.1 Firm and against which account cheues were issued. However, intimation of the dishonour was received by the complainant at Karjat through his bank. As held by the Supreme 9 Court, giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheue demanding payment of the cheuqe amount is also component of the transaction under Section 138. Notice was issued by the complainant from Karjat where he is situated. As per that notice accused were required to make the payment within 15 days from the service of the notice. Naturally that payment was to be made to the complainant at Karjat. However, accused persons failed to make the payment . In K. Bhaskaran (Supra), the Supreme Court held that if the aforesaid five different acts were done in five different localities, any of the Courts within the jurisdiction of which any such act was done would have jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of this, even though the cheque was drawn at Pune and the cheque was also dishonoured at Pune, as the notice in writing was issued by the complainant from Karjat to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment and the accused had failed to make the payment to the complainant at karjat, the Court of J.M.F.C. at Karjat has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, proceedings in the complaint can not be quashed nor it is necessary to give directions for transfer of those cases from Karjat to Pune Court. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are partly allowed. 10 Proceedings in the said complaint against the accused nos.3, 5 and 6 stand quashed . However, complaints shall proceed against the remaining accused persons before the Court at Karjat as per law. As these complaints are pending since the year 2002, the learned J.M.F.C., Karjat shall expedite the hearing and dispose off the same as early as possible. Rule made absolute accordingly. 7 As the writ petitions are itself disposed off, Criminal Application No.176 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay to further proceedings in criminal cases. Prayer rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 11