Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and complainant-respondent
No.1.
By the impugned order, the High Court refused to quash prosecution of
the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short
‘the Act’).
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that in
the complaint petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1, the appellants have been
described as partners of M/s. Premier Electronics (respondent No.2 herein) but no
specific allegation has been made against them as per the requirement of Section 141
of the Act and the High Court committed an error by refusing to quash their
prosecution.
In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of
larger Bench in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. [2005 (8) SCC
89]. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly admitted that the complaint does not
satisfy the requirement of Section 141 of the Act insofar as the appellants are
concerned.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the case of his client is covered in Neeta
Bhalla’s case.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the prosecution of the appellants is
hereby quashed.
We may, however, observe that this order shall not in any manner
prejudice the case of the complainant so far as other accused are concerned.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, January 12, 2009.