P. Sukumar & Ors.
Vs. M/S. Godrej Appliances Ltd. & Ors.  INSC 41 (12 January 2009)
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').
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
....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
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.
Pages: 1 2