Judgment:
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The respondent herein has filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which summoning orders have been 'issued against the petitioner. Challenging those summoning orders, present petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions, namely, (i) respondent/complainant is a partnership firm and since it is an unregistered partnership firm, it could not have filed compliant under Section 138 of the said Act; and (ii) the petitioner had no dealings with the respondent, namely, M/s. Madan Brick & Co. (this point was taken during oral arguments and is not stated in the petition).
2. Insofar as the non-maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a registered partnership firm is concerned, it is a misconceived argument inasmuch as Section 69 of the Partnership Act has no application to criminal cases. The Kerala High Court in the case of Abdul Gafoor v. Abdurrahiman 1999 (2) KLT 684 decided this issue, which was also a case under Section 138 of the Act.
3. Insofar as second contention is concerned, that raises disputed questions of fact. It is not denied that the cheque in question, which is dishonoured, was in the name of M/s. Madan Brick & Co. Under what circumstances this cheque was given would be a matter of evidence and it would be open to the petitioner to raise his defence in this respect.
4. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. Crl.M. No. 8881/2006 is also dismissed.