2002 JTR(SC) 657
2004 Supp AllCriC 439 ; 2003 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 580 ; 2006 2 BC 50 ; 2003 1 BomCR(SC) 534 ; 2003 1 DCR 453 ; 2002 8 SCC 236 ; 2002 KHC 1385
Supreme Court Of India
RAJ LAKSHMI MILLS
Versus
SHAKTI BHAKOO
Decided on : July 8, 2002
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138, S.141
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Complaint regarding dishonour of cheque issued by firm- Complaint filed against the respondent and another, being partners of the firm- The High Court quashed the summoning order, invoking Section of 141 of the Act holding that the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business- Not proper- At the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led, the High Court could not assume a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business- Therefore order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 3 and 4]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Complaint regarding dishonour of cheque issued by firm- Complaint filed against the respondent and another, being partners of the firm- The High Court quashed the summoning order, invoking Section of 141 of the Act holding that the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business- Not proper- At the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led, the High Court could not assume a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business- Therefore order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 3 and 4]
Judgment
B. N. KIRPAL, J.
( 1 ) ). Special leave granted.
( 2 ) ). The appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent as well as her brother-in-law Anoop Bhakoo under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act because of dishonour of a cheque which had been issued by M/s Sutlez Knitwears of which Anoop Bhakoo and the respondent were partners. Against the summoning order passed by the magistrate, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Crpc after the respondents application for discharge was unsuccessful.
( 3 ) ). The High Court invoked the provisions of Section 141 of the negotiable Instruments Act and came to the conclusion that as the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business, therefore the order summoning her was bad in law.
( 4 ) ). We are of the opinion that at the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led by the parties, the High Court could not on an assumption of facts come to a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business. On this ground alone, these appeals are allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court is set aside.