G. RAMESH versus KANIKE HARISH KUMAR UJWAL & ANR.

G. RAMESH versus KANIKE HARISH KUMAR UJWAL & ANR.

On a holistic reading the complaint sufficiently described the nature of the partnership, the business and the role of the accused in relation to the transactions and dishonoured cheques; since the explanation to Section 141 treats a firm as a "company" and a partner as a "director", the averments met Section 141(1) and the High Court erred in quashing the complaint against the first respondent.

Parties
Appellant Complainant: G. Ramesh; First Respondent Accused Partner: Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal; First Accused Partnership Firm: Vainqueur Corporate Services
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Quashing Complaint Under Section 482 Cr Pc; Judgment on Appeal Delivered by Supreme Court Allowing Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 13 June 2018 set aside
Legal Topics
Section 138 NI Act, Section 141 NI Act, Quashing of Complaint, Section 482 Cr PC
Criminal Law Negotiable Instruments Act Code of Criminal Procedure Section 138 NI Act Section 141 NI Act Quashing of Complaint Section 482 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Ramesh

Appellant Complainant

Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal

First Respondent Accused Partner

Vainqueur Corporate Services

First Accused Partnership Firm

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Quashing Complaint Under Section 482 Cr Pc; Judgment on Appeal Delivered by Supreme Court Allowing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to meet the requirement of Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in quashing the complaint against the first respondent

Ratio Decidendi

On a holistic reading the complaint sufficiently described the nature of the partnership, the business and the role of the accused in relation to the transactions and dishonoured cheques; since the explanation to Section 141 treats a firm as a "company" and a partner as a "director", the averments met Section 141(1) and the High Court erred in quashing the complaint against the first respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 13 June 2018 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 13 June 2018 set aside