Karnataka High Court
Bhavani Agencies vs G.C. Colour Lab And Anr. on 10 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2005)BC187, 2004(1)KARLJ421
Author: K. Ramanna
Bench: K. Ramanna
ORDER K. Ramanna, J.
1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner regarding maintainability of the petition and perused the records.
2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-8-2001 passed by XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in P.C.R. No. 1911 of 2001 filed by the complainant for bouncing of cheque. Whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint by holding that the complaint is hit by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C.
3. The case of the revision petitioner is that:
This revision petitioner filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No. 1911 of 2001 against M/s. G.C. Colour Lab and another. Respondent 1 is a partnership firm represented by its partner Sri N.S. Chandrakanth, 2nd respondent. Respondent 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 6,580/-, dated 24-2-2001, Cheque No. 475626 to discharge the liability of the 1st respondent. After complying with the mandatory provisions, the revision petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. So after recording the sworn statement, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the private complaint filed against the respondent is hit by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, at the threshold itself.
4. It is a well-settled law that no Civil suit is maintainable for and against the unregistered firm. In the instant case, the revision petitioner initiated criminal proceedings under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for bouncing of cheque, which is a criminal offence. In the case of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2002(3) BC 164, wherein, it has been held that:
"The bar created for maintaining a suit in Section 69 of the Partnership Act by a unregistered firm cannot be stretched and applied to maintain a criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Act".
In another decision of C. Prabhu v. Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment), Bangalore 2002(2) Kar. L.J. 572, it has been held that:
"The criminal proceedings initiated under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a suit, but the criminal proceedings which can be set in motion by any person aggrieved, i.e., holder of cheque in due course".
4-A. Further, in the case of Manohar Lal v. Vinesh Anand and Ors. , the Apex Court has held that:
"To pursue an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to subserve a social need - Society cannot afford to have a criminal escape his liability, since that would bring about a state of social pollution, which is neither desired nor warranted and this is irrespective of the concept of locus - the doctrine of locus standi is totally foreign to criminal jurisprudence".
5. Since the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed at the inception stage itself, issuance of notice to respondent was dispensed with.
6. Accordingly, the order under revision passed by the Trial Court is illegal and incorrect and it is liable to be set aside.
7. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-8-2001 passed by XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in dismissing the P.C.R. No. 1911 of 2001 is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to take this file on board and dispose of the case in accordance with law.