IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: SAROJ SURI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present :- MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint bearing No. NIACT/684/2019 dated 05.09.2019, titled as “ Transport Co. and others dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure P petition. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: SAROJ SURI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Monika Jalota, Legal Aid Counsel, for respondent No.2. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint bearing No. NIACT/684/2019 dated 05.09.2019, titled as “ Transport Co. and others” (Annexure P-1), as well as the summoning order dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure P-5), which has been impugned in the present IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.16268 of 2023 Reserved on:-01.04.2026 Pronounced on:-06.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 07.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment …Petitioner …Respondents S. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Monika Jalota, Legal Aid Counsel, present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint bearing No. NIACT/684/2019 dated 05.09.2019, titled as “M/s Bimco Motor versus RS 1), as well as the summoning order 5), which has been impugned in the present NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.16268 2. diesel pump at Amritsar Pathankot through its partner Sh. Harsh Mahajan, and is well conversant with the facts of the case. Accused No.1 is running a transport company and accused No.2 to 4 are the working partners of accused No.1. The accused used to fill diesel in their vehicl the complainant and a debit the complainant, wherein a total liability of accused towards payment of diesel. In discharge of part of the said le enforceable liability 01.07.2019 for Pathankot, assuring that the same would be honoured on presentation. However, when the complainant presented the ch Bank of India, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed” vide return memo dated 02.07.2019. Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused about the dishonour and requested payment, b Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2019 through counsel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dispatched on 01.08.2019, calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice; the notice was duly received, but the accused sent a false reply and failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that the accused intentionally issued th 16268 of 2023 -2- The complainant, M/s Bimco Motors, is running a petrol/ diesel pump at Amritsar–Jammu Highway near Sujanpur, District Pathankot through its partner Sh. Harsh Mahajan, and is well conversant with the facts of the case. Accused No.1 is running a transport company and accused No.2 to 4 are the working partners of accused No.1. The accused used to fill diesel in their vehicles/trucks from the petrol pump of the complainant and a debit-credit account was maintained in the books of the complainant, wherein a total liability of ₹8,14,500/ accused towards payment of diesel. In discharge of part of the said le enforceable liability, the accused issued cheque No. 01.07.2019 for ₹3,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Chhabra Palace Branch, Pathankot, assuring that the same would be honoured on presentation. However, when the complainant presented the ch Bank of India, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed” vide return memo dated 02.07.2019. Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused about the dishonour and requested payment, but the accused failed to make the payment. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2019 through counsel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dispatched on 01.08.2019, calling upon the accused to make yment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice; the notice was duly received, but the accused sent a false reply and failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that the accused intentionally issued the cheque from a closed account knowing The complainant, M/s Bimco Motors, is running a petrol/ Jammu Highway near Sujanpur, District Pathankot through its partner Sh. Harsh Mahajan, and is well conversant with the facts of the case. Accused No.1 is running a transport company and accused No.2 to 4 are the working partners of accused No.1. The es/trucks from the petrol pump of credit account was maintained in the books of ₹8,14,500/- accrued against the accused towards payment of diesel. In discharge of part of the said legally , the accused issued cheque No.059221 dated drawn on IDBI Bank, Chhabra Palace Branch, Pathankot, assuring that the same would be honoured on presentation. However, when the complainant presented the cheque through its bank, i.e Bank of India, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed” vide return memo dated 02.07.2019. Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused about the dishonour and ut the accused failed to make the payment. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2019 through counsel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dispatched on 01.08.2019, calling upon the accused to make yment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice; the notice was duly received, but the accused sent a false reply and failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that the e cheque from a closed account knowing NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.16268 fully well that the same would be dishonoured, thereby committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period, resulting in accrual of cause of action in favour of the complainant, and the complaint was filed within limitation before the competent Court at Pathankot, which has the territorial jurisdiction to try the same. 3. dated 21.10.2019 was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, for summoning of the accused persons. 4. Court, the present petitio namely Saroj Suri, challenging the summoning order qua her and seeking quashing of the complaint qua her. 5. present petitioner, Saroj Suri, has the complaint, as she is merely a sleeping partner of the firm M/s R.S. Transport Co. and is not involved in the day It is submitted that she has neither participated in the conduct of business nor signed the cheque in question, and therefore within the ambit of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which requires that the person sought to be made liable must be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of that in criminal law 16268 of 2023 -3- fully well that the same would be dishonoured, thereby committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment within the ed period, resulting in accrual of cause of action in favour of the complainant, and the complaint was filed within limitation before the competent Court at Pathankot, which has the territorial jurisdiction to try On the basis of the afore-said complaint, the impugned order dated 21.10.2019 was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, for summoning of the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved by the above Court, the present petition has been filed by one of the petitioners/accused, namely Saroj Suri, challenging the summoning order qua her and seeking quashing of the complaint qua her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner, Saroj Suri, has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the complaint, as she is merely a sleeping partner of the firm M/s R.S. Transport Co. and is not involved in the day It is submitted that she has neither participated in the conduct of business nor signed the cheque in question, and therefore within the ambit of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which requires that the person sought to be made liable must be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. It is further argued that in criminal law, there is no vicarious liability unless specifically fully well that the same would be dishonoured, thereby committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment within the ed period, resulting in accrual of cause of action in favour of the complainant, and the complaint was filed within limitation before the competent Court at Pathankot, which has the territorial jurisdiction to try aid complaint, the impugned order dated 21.10.2019 was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, for summoning of the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved by the above-said order passed by the trial n has been filed by one of the petitioners/accused, namely Saroj Suri, challenging the summoning order qua her and seeking Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the complaint, as she is merely a sleeping partner of the firm M/s R.S. Transport Co. and is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the business. It is submitted that she has neither participated in the conduct of the business nor signed the cheque in question, and therefore, does not fall within the ambit of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which requires that the person sought to be made liable must be in charge of and the business of the firm. It is further argued there is no vicarious liability unless specifically NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.16268 provided by statute, and in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint showing her active role, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 6. placed upon the judgment titled and Haryana High Court), Law Finder Doc ID # 44491 7. petitioner, being a partner of the firm, cannot escape liability merely on the plea of being a sleeping partner, as in cases where the juristic person i.e. firm is the principal offender, the liability exte argued that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is only required to show that the accused was a partner of the firm and it is for the accused to prove that the offence was committed without her kn contended that the question whether the petitioner is an active or sleeping partner is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Reliance is also placed upon Section 25 of the Part partner is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm. It is further submitted that the petitioner, in her reply to the statutory notice, has admitted liability to the extent of that she was merely a sleeping partner. It is also contended that the respondent has been litigating for a considerable period and the trial is yet to conclude. 8. 16268 of 2023 -4- provided by statute, and in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint showing her active role, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. In support of the afore-said contentions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment titled Hem Lata vs. State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Law Finder Doc ID # 44491 Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner, being a partner of the firm, cannot escape liability merely on the plea of being a sleeping partner, as in cases where the juristic person i.e. firm is the principal offender, the liability exte argued that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is only required to show that the accused was a partner of the firm and it is for the accused to prove that the offence was committed without her knowledge or that she exercised due diligence. It is further contended that the question whether the petitioner is an active or sleeping partner is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Reliance is also placed upon Section 25 of the Partnership Act to submit that every partner is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm. It is further submitted that the petitioner, in her reply to the statutory notice, has admitted liability to the extent of ₹4,61,267/ that she was merely a sleeping partner. It is also contended that the respondent has been litigating for a considerable period and the trial is yet In support of the afore-said contentions, reliance has been provided by statute, and in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint showing her active role, continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of the process of law. said contentions, reliance has been Hem Lata vs. State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Law Finder Doc ID # 44491. counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner, being a partner of the firm, cannot escape liability merely on the plea of being a sleeping partner, as in cases where the juristic person i.e. firm is the principal offender, the liability extends to its partners. It is argued that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is only required to show that the accused was a partner of the firm and it is for the accused to prove that the offence was committed owledge or that she exercised due diligence. It is further contended that the question whether the petitioner is an active or sleeping partner is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Reliance nership Act to submit that every partner is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm. It is further submitted that the petitioner, in her reply to the statutory notice, has ₹4,61,267/-, and has not stated therein that she was merely a sleeping partner. It is also contended that the respondent has been litigating for a considerable period and the trial is yet said contentions, reliance has been NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.16268 placed upon the judgment Snehalatha Elangovan SLP (Crl.) No. 9811 of 2021), decided Supreme Court of India. 9. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. has been specifically arrayed as one of the partners of the firm M/s R.S. Transport Co. Further, the legal noti Negotiable Instruments Act was addressed to all the partners of the firm, including the present petitioner. A copy of the reply to the said notice has also been placed on record, wherein no plea whatsoever has been taken the petitioner that she was merely a sleeping partner or that she was not concerned with the affairs of the firm. Rather, the stand now sought to be raised appears to be an afterthought. 11. significance. A perusal of Clause 7 of the said deed clearly reveals that all the partners, including the present petitioner, had agreed to work in the partnership business as “working partners”. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that she the documentary record itself. 12. inducted only for the benefit of partnership and may not be aware of day to-day affairs of the business is based purely on conjectures and surmises 16268 of 2023 -5- placed upon the judgment titled S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9811 of 2021), decided on Supreme Court of India. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the complaint shows that the present petitioner has been specifically arrayed as one of the partners of the firm M/s R.S. Transport Co. Further, the legal notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was addressed to all the partners of the firm, including the present petitioner. A copy of the reply to the said notice has also been placed on record, wherein no plea whatsoever has been taken the petitioner that she was merely a sleeping partner or that she was not concerned with the affairs of the firm. Rather, the stand now sought to be raised appears to be an afterthought. Moreover, the partnership deed placed on record assumes ificance. A perusal of Clause 7 of the said deed clearly reveals that all the partners, including the present petitioner, had agreed to work in the partnership business as “working partners”. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that she was merely a sleeping partner is belied by the documentary record itself. The argument that generally ladies or certain partners are inducted only for the benefit of partnership and may not be aware of day day affairs of the business is based purely on conjectures and surmises S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. , Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2022 (arising out of on 16.09.2022 by the Hon’ble I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the complaint shows that the present petitioner has been specifically arrayed as one of the partners of the firm M/s R.S. ce issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was addressed to all the partners of the firm, including the present petitioner. A copy of the reply to the said notice has also been placed on record, wherein no plea whatsoever has been taken by the petitioner that she was merely a sleeping partner or that she was not concerned with the affairs of the firm. Rather, the stand now sought to be Moreover, the partnership deed placed on record assumes ificance. A perusal of Clause 7 of the said deed clearly reveals that all the partners, including the present petitioner, had agreed to work in the partnership business as “working partners”. Thus, the contention raised on was merely a sleeping partner is belied by The argument that generally ladies or certain partners are inducted only for the benefit of partnership and may not be aware of day- day affairs of the business is based purely on conjectures and surmises NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.16268 and cannot be accepted in the face of a specific deed showing the petitioner to be a working partner. 13. in Hem Lata vs. State of Punjab said case, the firm had sleeping partners and on that basis no case was made out against such sleeping partners who were not responsible for the conduct of business. However, in the present case, it is nowhere established that the petitioner was a sleeping partner; rather, the partnership deed itself specifically describes her as a working partner. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. respondent on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 45 has held that once the nec averments regarding vicarious liability are made and the accused does not respond appropriately to the statutory notice, the complainant is justified in proceeding on the basis that such averments stand accepted. Further, it has been held that the c regarding responsibility of the accused, and it is for the accused to establish, during trial, that he/she was not in charge of the affairs of the firm. 15. the primary responsibility of the complainant is to make specific averments 16268 of 2023 -6- and cannot be accepted in the face of a specific deed showing the petitioner to be a working partner. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner Hem Lata vs. State of Punjab (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the firm had sleeping partners and on that basis no case was made out against such sleeping partners who were not responsible for the conduct of business. However, in the present case, it is nowhere established that the petitioner was a sleeping partner; rather, the partnership deed itself specifically describes her as a working partner. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the On the other hand, reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 45 has held that once the nec averments regarding vicarious liability are made and the accused does not respond appropriately to the statutory notice, the complainant is justified in proceeding on the basis that such averments stand accepted. Further, it has been held that the complainant is only required to make basic averments regarding responsibility of the accused, and it is for the accused to establish, during trial, that he/she was not in charge of the affairs of the The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further summari the primary responsibility of the complainant is to make specific averments and cannot be accepted in the face of a specific clause in the partnership deed showing the petitioner to be a working partner. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the firm had sleeping partners and on that basis, it was held that no case was made out against such sleeping partners who were not responsible for the conduct of business. However, in the present case, it is nowhere established that the petitioner was a sleeping partner; rather, the partnership deed itself specifically describes her as a working partner. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the other hand, reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan (supra), is well founded. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 45 has held that once the necessary averments regarding vicarious liability are made and the accused does not respond appropriately to the statutory notice, the complainant is justified in proceeding on the basis that such averments stand accepted. Further, it has omplainant is only required to make basic averments regarding responsibility of the accused, and it is for the accused to establish, during trial, that he/she was not in charge of the affairs of the The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further summarized that (a) the primary responsibility of the complainant is to make specific averments NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.16268 to fasten vicarious liability; (b) the complainant is not required to prove that the accused had knowledge of each transaction; (c) the burden lies upon the accused to the firm; and (d) for quashing of proceedings, the accused must bring on record unimpeachable material to show that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. 16. case, this Court finds that the complaint contains necessary averments, the petitioner has failed to place any unimpeachable material to show that she was not in charge of the affairs of the firm, and rat indicates her role as a working partner. 17. the summoning order or for quashing of the complaint qua the petitioner. 18. 19. 06.04.2026 neetu 16268 of 2023 -7- to fasten vicarious liability; (b) the complainant is not required to prove that the accused had knowledge of each transaction; (c) the burden lies upon the accused to establish that he/she was not in charge of the affairs of the firm; and (d) for quashing of proceedings, the accused must bring on record unimpeachable material to show that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Applying the afore-said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the complaint contains necessary averments, the petitioner has failed to place any unimpeachable material to show that she was not in charge of the affairs of the firm, and rat indicates her role as a working partner. In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference in the summoning order or for quashing of the complaint qua the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismis All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: to fasten vicarious liability; (b) the complainant is not required to prove that the accused had knowledge of each transaction; (c) the burden lies establish that he/she was not in charge of the affairs of the firm; and (d) for quashing of proceedings, the accused must bring on record unimpeachable material to show that continuation of proceedings said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the complaint contains necessary averments, the petitioner has failed to place any unimpeachable material to show that she was not in charge of the affairs of the firm, and rather the partnership deed In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference in the summoning order or for quashing of the complaint qua the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No NEETU RANI 2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD