Mrs.N.Praveena vs / on 22 September, 2022
2. A short point involved in this case is that whether the third
parties though related to the signatory of the cheque can be roped in the
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Based on the cheque drawn by the account maintained by the proprietary
concern and signed by the proprietary, this issue has already been settled by
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court (i) Milind
Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M.Khan and others reported in [AIR
Page No.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
2011 SC 1588]; (ii) Nagarajan v. K.Murugesan reported in [2017 SCC
online Mad 14476]; (iii) P.V.Selvaraj v. Thirupura Chits Private
Limited reported in [2020 SCC Online Mad 8596]; (iv) N.Backiya
Lakshmi v. Palanivel reported in [2017 SCC Online Mad 24066] and
(V)Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar v. Shivakumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav
reported in [(2019)10 SCC 203] that the principle of vicariously liable has
found in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the offence
committed by the Company cannot be applied to the proprietary firm since
the proprietary firm is not a jurisdictional body unlike company. Therefore,
the case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on
the cheque issued by a Firm, the signatory of the cheque alone can be held
liable for prosecution or if it is a partnership firm, the other partners should
have knowledge and participated in the affairs of the partnership firm and be
roped him as an accused.