IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2004

VENKATESHWARAN & ANR. .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

M/S. SINGARAVEL YARN TRADERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The present appeal is against the order passed by the High Court refusing to  

entertain  the  petition  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  challenging  the  proceedings  of  

complaint  filed  against  the  accused  persons  for  the  offence  under  Section  138  of  

Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881.   The  petition  was  filed  on  the  ground  that  the  

appellants were not the partners and had nothing to do with the aforementioned firm  

which was accused No.1 in the complaint.  The learned Judge has observed that it was  

not possible at this stage to ascertain as to whether the concerned appellants were the  

partners  of  the  partnership  firm  and  whether  there  was  any  partnership  firm  in  

existence.  When we see the complaint filed in trial Court, it is very clearly stated as  

under:

“6. The  second  accused  is  guilty,  as  drawer  of  the  

cheque  on  behalf  of  Accused  No.1,  as  its  Managing  Partner.   The  

Accused  Nos.  3  and 4  being  partners  of  the  Accused No.1,  were in  

charge  of  and  were  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  

Accused No.1, and shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence.”

......2.

- 2 -

Therefore, the question as to whether the present appellants, who were accused No.3

and 4, were the partners of the firm and were responsible for conduct of business is the  

disputed  question  of  fact  which  could  not  have  been  gone  into  under  Section  482  

Cr.P.C.  The High Court was absolutely right in not entertaining that question.   It  

would be during the trial for the accused persons to urge that they were not in any way  

concerned  with  the  said  partnership  firm.   In  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  was  

absolutely right in dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.

  ...........................J.    ( V.S. SIRPURKAR )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. May 28, 2009.              ( R.M. LODHA )