9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions Criminal Petition No(s). 35-56 of 2021 & No(s). 74-94 of 2021 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 Complaints filed by the appellants herein under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the NI Act Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter as 'NI Act') along with Sections 420, 418, 417, 403, 409 and 406 of the IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') filed before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case available on record are that on 11.07.2015, respondent no.3 Respondent No.3 in the present appeal is Twelve Baskets, a registered fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020, 67/2020 against the respondents no. 1 to 4 under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the NI Act3 along with Sections 420, 418, 417, 403, 409 and 406 of the IPC4. Following that, other appellants, including appellants no. 2 Appellant No.2 in the present appeal is Rahat Bawri, 3 Appellant No.3 in the present appeal is Payal Bansal and 4 Appellant No.4 in the present appeal is Rahat Bawri (HUF). filed similar Criminal Complaints Criminal Complaints No.53-54/2019, 56/2019, 59-61/2019, 66/2019, 73/2019, 75-77/2019, 36-37/2020, 68-71/2020 (Total 22 Complaints) against the respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, after perusing the statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the cases and issued summons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned 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. However, the appellants' argument is that a public notice announcing the retirement of the respondent no.1 as a partner was released for the first time on 09.02.2022, subsequent to the trial Court summoning the respondents. Till that point, there is no evidence on record to indicate that the respondent no.1 was not a partner of the firm. The Retirement Deed dated 01.04.2018 placed on record by the respondent no.1 to support his case is a self-serving document which ought to be proved during the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be lead in that regard. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred records. 12. It is a case in which the premises owned by Riya Bawri, Rahat Bawri and Payal Bansal, was taken on rent by the respondents for a consideration of Rs.1,45,152/- per month (including taxes). To discharge their liability for payment of the rent, various cheques were issued in favour of the appellants, the details whereof are as under: Sr. No. Cheque No. Date Amount In favour of 1. 001412 10.05.2019 Rs. 1,54,037/- Rahat Bawri 2. 001428 25.05.2019 Rs. 94,500/- Rahat Bawri (HUF) 3. 001416 20.06.2019 Rs. 1,54,037/- Riya Bawri 4. 001411 30.04.2019 Rs. 1,54,037/- Payal Bansal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) at Shillong under Sections 138, 141 & 142 of the NI Act and under Sections 420, 418, 417, 403, 409 and 406 of IPC. 14. After considering the preliminary evidence led by the complaints, the trial Court summoned the accused/respondents. Mark Alexander Davidson and Sarita Harish Kanchan (proceedings against both of them were dropped by the High Court) along with Twelve Baskets and Sachhidanand Kanchan 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 High Court vide common impugned order quashed the complaints and the summoning order against the respondents no.1 and 2. 15. The on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the firm. Thus, they were liable to be proceeded against and punished. The offence has been committed with the consent and connivance of the accused nos. 2 to 4, which included the respondent no.1. 19. The High Court had accepted the argument raised by the respondent no.1 and quashed the summoning order as well as the complaints against him, accepting the plea that he had retired from the partnership firm for which a Retirement Deed was already executed on 01.04.2018. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
