[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2507 OF 2006 Smt.Shirley Naresh Rajwani ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Barrista Coffee Co.Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Rahul Arote Adv. i/b Shri.Sudeep Pasbola advocate for Petitioner Mr.U.L.Shah Adv. for Respondent No.2 Ms.A.A.Mane A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused no.3, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of process issued against her under Sections 138 r.w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said process has been issued in CC No.3279/SS/2005 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. [-2-] 3. The petitioner claims that there is no specific averment in the complaint to make her responsible under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act for the offence committed by the Firm. Reliance is placed on the decision of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah Monaben Ketanbhai Shah Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and others; 2004 and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and others; 2004 and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and others; 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1857 SCC (Cri.) 1857 SCC (Cri.) 1857. I have perused the said judgment. In the said judgment, it is seen that in the complaint there were no averments against the accused persons except stating in the title that they are partners of the firm. No further averments were made in the complaint in respect of the accused persons. 4. Advocate on behalf of Respondent no.1-original complainant submitted that there are specific averments in the complaint to make out a case against the petitioner-accused. On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that it is mentioned therein that accused no.1 is a partnership Firm and accused nos.2 and 3 are partners of the said firm. In para 12 of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that accused nos.2 and 3 are partners of accused no.1 firm and are responsible to the firm for the [-3-] conduct of the business of the Firm. 5. Under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if an offence under Section 138 of the Act is committed by the Company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of Company at the relevant time shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case and the averments in the complaint, the contention of the petitioner is not tenable, hence, petition is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]