Cheque Case Against Firm’s Partner Can Be Quashed Only On
Cheque Case Against Firm’s Partner Can Be Quashed Only On Strong Evidence That He Didn’t Have Any Concern With Issuing Cheque : Supreme Court
|
The Supreme Court observed that a cheque case against a partner of the firm cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC unless there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that he/she did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques.
The High Court had quashed the summoning order against a partner of the firm taking into account the materials which indicated that on the dates when the cheques were issued for discharging the liability for payment of rent for the premises taken by the firm, he had already retired from the firm and a Retirement Deed in that regard was executed.
Disagreeing with this view, the Apex Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed that the Retirement Deed sought to be produced by the partner for quashing of the summoning order and the complaints could not be taken on its face value, and treated as clinching evidence to quash the complaints. It is not the case set up by him that in the Partnership Deed it is mentioned that he was a sleeping partner in the firm, the Court noted.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 482 – Cheque complaint against partner of a firm – Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques.
Post Categories
Featured Posts
Latest Posts
Latest Posts
S.106 Transfer Of Property Act | Onus On Tenant To Prove That Premises Was Leased For Manufacturing Purpose: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that in order to attract the application of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which requires 6 months’ notice for termination of lease, ...
EVMs Non-Tamperable, Demand For 100% VVPAT Verification Regressive: Election Commission Tells Supreme Court
Ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has staunchly defended electronic voting machines (EVM) as ‘non-tamperable’, both owing to technological measures and strict administrative and security procedures designed by the commission. In a recent ...
S. 50 NDPS Act Not Applicable To Recovery From Bag Carried By A Person: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the conditions for personal search as specified in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for ...
Repatriation of Funds and Investments: Legal Guidelines for NRIs
For Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), repatriating funds and investments back to their country of residence is a crucial aspect of financial management. However, navigating the legal landscape can be complex. Here are essential guidelines NRIs should follow to ensure smooth and ...
Understanding Section 11: Why Minors Cannot Contract | Know the Law
📘 Can a Minor Enter Into a Contract? ❌ Absolutely Not.As per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person must be of the age of majority (i.e., 18 years or 21 in certain guardianship cases) to enter ...
Documents Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination In Civil Trial To Confront Party To Suit Or Witness : Supreme Court
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a document can produced during cross-examination in a civil trial to confront a party to the suit or a witness. The Court also held that there is no distinction between ...
Speak With Our
Get a Appointment