Final Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 194/2021
In re:
Mr. R. Haroon Rasheed
S/o Sh. M.A. Razack
R/o Old No. 35/A, New No.3,
Anaikatti Maidhanam
Beema Nagar, Trichy-620001 ......Revisionist
Versus
M/s Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd.
Through its Senior Manager
Sh. Prem Chand Tanwar
Commercial Plot No. 15, Knowledge Park-II
Institutional Area, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar
Greater Noida-201306. …….Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.06.2021
Date of impugned order : 17.02.2021
Date of hearing arguments : 24.03.2022
Date of order : 31.03.2022
Appearances:
Sh. Altaf Rashid, Advocate for the revisionist/accused.
Sh. Mayank Bughani, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the revisionist/
accused under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside and recalling of impugned
summoning order dated 17.02.2021, passed by the Court of Sh.
Crl. Rev. 194/2021 R. Haroon Rasheed vs. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd. Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
Himanshu Sehloth, the then Ld. MM, PHC, New Delhi, in complaint
case bearing no. 4132/20 titled as M/s Jubilant Agri & Consumer
Products Ltd. vs. Rockfort Agencies.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated, the respondent in the present revision
petition is the complainant, who is pursuing remedy under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short the ‘N.I. Act’) against the
accused partnership firm and its two partners, namely Mr. S. Selvaraj
and the present revisionist Mr. R. Haroon Rasheed. The learned MM
took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. vide order
dated 06.03.2020 and summons were ordered to be issued to the
respondents vide impugned order dated 17.02.2021.
3. The impugned summoning order is assailed primarily on
the ground that although the revisionist was running business in
partnership with accused no.2 vide partnership deed dated 31.01.2013,
he had retired from the partnership business on 31.10.2018 with mutual
consent and a new partner namely Mrs. C. Yogamuthulakshmi was
introduced in the firm M/s Rockfort Agencies. Reliance is placed on the
copy of retirement deed dated 31.10.2018 as also on the partnership
deed executed subsequent thereto, dated 31.10.2018.
4. Hence, the main plank of the revision petition is that since
the revisionist retired from the business of M/s Rockfort Agencies and
ended all his concern/affairs with the partnership firm, he has no liability
towards the impugned cheque dated 17.01.2020 drawn on State Bank
of India for a sum of Rs.7,00,167/-.
Crl. Rev. 194/2021 R. Haroon Rasheed vs. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd. Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, I find that the present revision petition is devoid of
any merits. Whether or not, the revisionist has retired from the
partnership business w.e.f. 31.10.2018 is a triable issue and at this
stage of the case, when it is prima facie conceded by the revisionist
that consignment of goods were being received from the complainant in
the ordinary course of business and the impugned cheque was issued
under his signature as security for such transaction; and in view of the
categorical averment of the complainant that revisionist has been
managing the day-to-day affairs of the partnership business, there are
no ground available in law to dispense with the issue of vicarious
liability of the revisionist that arises by virtue of Section 141 & 142 of
N.I. Act. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision in the
case of Rallies India Ltd. vs. Poduru Vidyabhushan 2011 SCC
Online SC 628.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present revision
petition is dismissed. This shall be without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the revisionist. Nothing contained herein shall
tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
5. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent
back forthwith.
6. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
on 31st March, 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
Crl. Rev. 194/2021 R. Haroon Rasheed vs. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd. Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --