IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3452 of 2004)

P. Sukumar & Ors.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Godrej Appliances Ltd. & Ors.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  and  complainant-respondent

No.1.  

By the impugned order, the High Court refused to quash prosecution of

the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short

‘the Act’).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that in

the complaint petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1, the appellants have been

described as partners of M/s. Premier Electronics (respondent No.2 herein) but no

specific allegation has been made against them as per the requirement of Section 141

of  the Act  and the High Court  committed  an  error  by refusing to quash their

prosecution.

....2/-

- 2 -

In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of

larger Bench in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. [2005 (8) SCC

89].  Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly admitted that the complaint does not

satisfy  the  requirement  of  Section  141  of  the  Act  insofar  as  the  appellants  are

concerned.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the argument of

the learned counsel for the appellants that the case of his client is covered in Neeta

Bhalla’s case.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the prosecution of the appellants is

hereby quashed.

We  may,  however,  observe  that  this  order  shall  not  in  any  manner

prejudice the case of the complainant so far as other accused are concerned.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, January 12, 2009.