HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8675, 8676 and 8680 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners herein are accused of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act). They are arrayed as A.4, A.6 and A.7 in the respective complaints filed by the 1st respondent/complainant. They are shown as partners of A.1 partnership firm. A.2 and A.3 are admitted partners of A.1. The dishonoured cheques in these three cases were signed by A.3 representing A.1 firm. Even though the petitioners/A.4, A.6 and A.7 contend that they retired from A.1’s partnership long prior to drawing of the cheques in question, the said contention cannot be considered in these petitions as it involves a question of fact. The petitioners seek relief herein basing on Section 141 of the Act. It may not be out of place to mention that previously this Court (K.C.BHANU,J) had three occasions to consider similar cases in the batch between the same parties and came to the conclusion that A.4, A.6 and A.7 are not liable to be proceeded with for dishonour of cheques drawn by A.1’s firm in favour of the complainant with A.3 as signatory (vide Crl.P.Nos.3082, 3084 and 3085 of 2007 dated 27.07.2007). In the said previous decisions, this Court basing on Monaben Ketanbhai Shan v State of Gujarat[1], S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V Neeta Bhalla[2], Saroj Kumar Poddar v State (NCT of Delhi)[3] of the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners a n d P.Ramachandra Reddy v M/s Sanghi Enterprises[4], N.Chandrasekhar v Allwyn, a Unit of Voltas Ltd.[5] of this Court on behalf of the 1st respondent, quashed the respective complaints insofar as the petitioners/A4, A.6 and A.7 are concerned. The dishonoured cheques in question in these three cases were issued in pursuance of memorandum of understanding dated 31.03.2004 entered between the complainant company and A.1 firm. A.2 alone signed in the said memorandum of understanding. It is in pursuance of the said memorandum of understanding, the cheques were drawn by A.3 as signatory representing A.1 firm. Even though total amount due to the complainant company was Rs.7,94,70,517/-, compromise was arrived at after waiving Rs.3,89,70,517/- after the complainant agreed to receive only Rs.4,05,00,000/-. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the total amount due between the parties was arrived after taking into consideration the subject matter in C.C.Nos.814 to 818 of 2003 pending between the parties. In the said cases, C.C.Nos.814 to 818 of 2003, A.4, A.6 and A.7 were not parties. They were filed by the complainant company against A.1 to A.3 only and no others. When the basic liability was only against A.1 to A.3, the liability is not expected to be expanded against A.4, A.6 and A.7 also by virtue of the memorandum of understanding to which A.4, A.6 and A.7 were not signatories. Even as per allegations in the respective complaints, A.2 and A.3 were incharge of and were responsible for conduct of business of A.1 firm. No doubt, it is alleged that the other accused being partners also associated themselves and approached the complainant-company at the time of purchase of material. The question of approaching the complainant-company by all the partners of A.1 firm is artificial. It is not as if the transactions by way of either contracts or indents or delivery challans were signed by any of the petitioners herein ie. A.4, A.6 and A.7. Therefore, mere allegation that all the other partners of A.1 also approached the complainant company ie. Rallis India Limited at Mumbai, becomes only an allegation made for the purpose of impleading the petitioners in the complaints. In view of the above case law, previous decisions of this Court, basic liability between the parties and also the allegations in the respective complaints, I am of the opinion that impleading the petitioners herein as accused in the respective complaints is nothing but abuse of process of law. In the result, Criminal Petition No.8675 of 2008 is allowed, quashing C.C.No.136 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad insofar as the petitioner/A.4 is concerned. In the result, Criminal Petition No.8676 of 2008 is allowed, quashing C.C.No.202 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3/A.4, A.6 and A.7 are concerned. In the result, Criminal Petition No.8680 of 2008 is allowed, quashing C.C.No.135 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3/A.4, A.6 and A.7 are concerned. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 10th November, 2011. PNV [1] (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 15 [2] (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 70 [3] (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 693 [4] 2004 CRI.L.J.2171 [5] 1999(3) ALD 44