G. RAMESH versus KANIKE HARISH KUMAR UJWAL & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 05-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
G. RAMESH
v.
KANIKE HARISH KUMAR UJWAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2019)
APRIL 05, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of
complaint filed under s.138 NI Act – Case of the appellant-
complainant was that the partnership firm of which the first
respondent was a partner had obtained contracts for data entry,
which were sub-contracted to the complainant on deposit of caution
amount for assigning the job of data entry to him – After the job of
data entry was completed, the accused issued two cheques which
on presentation were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency
of funds – Thereafter, two more cheques were issued by the managing
partner which were again returned unpaid – Complaint filed under
s.138 NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint – Appeal by
complainant – Question for consideration in the appeal was whether
there were sufficient averments in the complaint to meet the
requirement of s.141(1) NI Act – Held: In terms of the explanation
to s.141, the expression “company” is defined to mean any body
corporate and include a firm or other association of individuals –
Sub-section (1) of s.141 postulates that where an offence is
committed under s.138 by a company, the company as well as every
person who, at the time when the offence was committed, was in-
charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of
the business shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence – In the
instant case, the complaint contained sufficient description of the
nature of the partnership, the business which was being carried on
and the role of each of the accused in the conduct of the business
and, specifically, in relation to the transactions which took place
with the complainant – At every place in the  averments, the accused
were referred to in the plural sense – Besides this, the specific role
of each of them in relation to the transactions arising out of the
contract in question, which ultimately led to the dishonour of the
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 751
751
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
cheques, was elucidated – The averments were sufficient to meet
the requirement of s.141(1) – The fact that the first accused was a
partnership firm of which the remaining two accused were partners
was missed by the High Court – Thus, High Court was in error in
quashing the complaint against the first respondent – Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 141.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : The complaint contains a recital of the fact that the
first set of cheques were returned for insufficiency of funds.  The
complaint also contains an averment that after the second set of
cheques were dishonoured, the accused assured the complainant
that they will be honoured on re-presentation in the month of
July 2011.  The averments are sufficient to meet the requirement
of Section 141(1). The High Court proceeded on the basis that
the first accused was a company in which the other two accused
were directors. Section 141 undoubtedly uses the expression
“company” so as to include a firm or association of persons. The
fact that the first accused, in the present case, is a partnership
firm of which the remaining two accused are partners has been
missed by the High Court. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and Others
(2015) 1 SCC 103 : [2014] 10 SCR 1117 – relied on
Case Law Reference
[2014] 10 SCR 1117
relied on
Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 603 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2018 of the High Court
of   Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 5301 of 2014.
Ms. Bhabhna Das,  Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Advocates for the
Appellant.
Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Ms. Roohina Dua,
Kunwar Aditya Singh, Ejaz Maqbool, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai
Singh,  Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 13 June 2018 of a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.1
While allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732 instituted by the first respondent, the High Court
quashed the proceedings3 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate
of First Class arising out of a complaint  under Section 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.