B.S. Bakshi Vs. State of Delhi and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/712555
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnOct-30-2006
Case NumberCrl.M.C. 5218/2006 and Crl. M. No. 8881/2006
Judge A.K. Sikri, J.
Reported in2006(92)DRJ525
ActsNegotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138; Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69
AppellantB.S. Bakshi
RespondentState of Delhi and anr.
Appellant Advocate Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Adv
Respondent Advocate Rajesh Banati and; U.L. Watwani, Advs.
Cases ReferredAbdul Gafoor v. Abdurrahiman
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, 1973section 482 - section 69 of partnership act, 1932 has no application criminal cases--the non-maintainability of the complaint under section 138 on the ground that the complainant is not a registered partnership firm is a misconceived argument--these the petition is dismissed. - 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.
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.