Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.1 has filed reply, wherein it is averred that S. 319 CrPC provides that in the course of any inquiry or trial of an a offence it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that once there is no dispute that the cheque in question has been signed by petitioners and the cheque has been issued by the firm, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned court below, while arraying petitioners herein as an accused in case filed under S.138 of the Act. Above named counsel while placing reliance upon an order dated 3.9.2019 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishore Sharma v.

6. Mr. Rajiv Rai and Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocates representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this court to complaint under S. 138 of the Act as well as application under S.319 CrPC, vehemently argued that at no point of time, allegation if any ,ever came to be leveled against the petitioners that the loan of Rs. 5.00 Lakh was advanced to them, rather, there is a precise allegation in the complaint that respondent /complainant lent Rs. 5.00 Lakh in the month of March, 2016 to respondent No.2 /accused Rishi Rana for his domestic use and as such, there is no liability, if any, of theirs. He further argued that it is not the case of the complainant that the money was lent to the firm and as such, petitioners herein being partners in the firm, issued notice and as such, petitioners cannot be held liable for action if any, of one of the partners i.e. respondent No.2 Rishi Rana, who had raised personal loan. Above named counsel further argued that since at no point of time, legal notice, if any, ever came to be issued against the petitioners before initiation of proceedings under S.138 of the Act, complaint, if any, qua them otherwise is not maintainable.

5.00 Lakh for his domestic use. There is not even a whisper in the complaint that the loan to the tune of Rs. 5.00 Lakh was advanced to some firm or other partners of accused Rishi Rana. It is only after conclusion of evidence, that the complainant filed an application under S. 319 CrPC praying therein to array the petitioners as an accused on the ground that they have also signed cheque alongwith accused Rishi Rana.

It has been further averred in the reply that inadvertently before instituting complaint under S.138, no notice could be issued to the petitioners.

15. No doubt under S.319 CrPC, court enjoys vast power to order impleadment of those persons as accused against whom, some evidence appears during trial or enquiry that he has also committed offence alongwith other accused but in the case at hand, there is /was no material available before court below to arrive at a conclusion that persons sought to be arrayed as accused i.e. petitioners herein had committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act.