VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) C .M. No. 32393 of 2008. Cr. M. is allowed. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. 40416-M of 2007. This order shall disposed of Criminal Misc. Nos. 40415-M of 2007, 40416-M of 2007 and 40417-M of 20007 all titled as Dr. Anand Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana and another as a common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 461 of 2005 titled as M/s. Sumer Chand Sulekh Chand Anaj Mandi, Panipat v. M/s. Shree Anand Rice Mills and others pending in the court of Shri Hem Raj Verma, JMIC Panipat. Petitioner has also challenged summoning order dated 14.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and has been registered at No. 18444 with Ayurvidic and Unani Medical System Board, Haryana since 26.11.1987 and since then he is in active medical practice and running his clinic at Jain Market, Railway Road, Karnal. The petitioner claims that he was the sleeping partner in M/s. Shree Anand Rice Mills. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act) has been filed the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. The petitioner also prays that he ceased to be the partner in dissolution deed dated 25.08 2006, Annexure A-3 with the petition, executed between the parties. Respondent No. 2 - M/s. Sumer Chand Sulekh Chand Anaj Mandi, Panipat, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the firm and its partners including the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint read as under : "The complainant most respectfully submits as under : 1. That the complainant firm is a registered firm vide Serial No. 59 of 2005- 06 dated 11.10.2005 and complainant Sulekh Chand being the partner of complainant firm is fully competent to file the complaint against the accused persons. 2. That the complainant deals in all kind of material like wheat, paddy etc. and has a regular account with the accused persons and a balance of Rs. 17,26,056.30P is still outstanding against the accused persons as on 31.3.2005. The accused have given a balance confirmation letter in this respect. During the course of transaction and in discharge of their liability, the accused have issued a cheque No. 573355, dated 28.9.2005 of Rs. 5,61,040.30P of Punjab National Bank, Karnal. 3. That the complainant deposited the said cheques in their accounts with their bankers i.e. The Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.T. Road, Panipat during the period of its validity, but it is a matter of great sorrow and surprise that the bank of the accused persons returned the said cheque unpaid on the grounds of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" vide memo dated 14.10.005. 4. That the accused persons had sent the above said cheque to complainant with dishonest intention and same has been proved by dishonouring of the cheque mentioned above of the accused for want of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". Thus, the accused persons have cheated and misguided the complainant and they are also equally liable for prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. 5. That the complainant after that sent the legal notice to the accused persons through his counsel on (sic) -received back with report that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 do not live at the given address even the U.P.C. is not received back and accused Nos. 5 and 6 despite or service of notice have not complied with the notice and they have not made the payment of dishonoured cheque along with interest thereon till now within 15 days as stipulated under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused persons have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended up to date. 6. That the complaint has been filed within stipulated time and offence have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court has powers to prosecute the accused persons and punish for offence committed by them. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused persons may kindle be summoned, tried and punished jointly according to the provisions of law."
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint and the summoning order of the petitioner are liable to be quashed as in the complaint no allegation has been made that the petitioner was responsible for conduct of the business of the partnership firm. In the absence of such averment, the complaint and the summoning order and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.;