Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 18 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Lalit Mohan Chandra Bhatt; Respondent: Afsar Ali (case titled Afsar Ali vs. Vaishnavi Food Product and Others).
  • Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 seeking quash of Complaint Case No. 124 of 2025, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar.
  • The complaint alleged that an account‑payee cheque No. 26201 dated 06‑11‑2025 for Rs 50 lakhs, drawn on the account of M/s Vaishnavi Food Product (Acct No 06560500000810), was presented at HDFC Bank, Rampur Road, Bazpur on 14‑01‑2025, returned “funds insufficient” on 15‑01‑2025, and a notice issued on 20‑01‑2025 was returned with refusal.
  • The petitioner contended that he was not a signatory; the cheque was signed by authorized partners Rajendra Kumar Sharma and Anil Kumar Sharma. He became a partner on 01‑04‑2023, with signing authority effective from 01‑02‑2025, and therefore claimed no liability.
  • The petition relied on a certification from Bank of Baroda, Sultanpur Patti dated 20‑07‑2026.

Court’s Reasoning

  • Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes every person “in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company” liable for offences under Section 138, and a partner is deemed a director.
  • Jurisprudence holds that a partnership firm has no separate legal personality; liability is joint and several for active partners.
  • The complaint specifically averred that all accused, including the petitioner, were collectively responsible for day‑to‑day affairs of the firm.
  • At the time the cheque was issued (06‑01‑2025), the petitioner was already an active partner (induction on 01‑04‑2023), satisfying the requirement of being “in charge” of the business.
  • Non‑signatory status does not exempt a partner from criminal liability if he was managing the firm.
  • The court found the complaint prima facie disclosed all ingredients of the offence; the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS 2023 must be exercised sparingly and does not warrant interference.

Final Outcome

  • The petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 is dismissed as lacking merit.
  • The trial court is directed to continue the proceedings in accordance with law.

Topics: Cheque Bounce; Partnership Liability