Supreme Court Upholds Cheque Bounce Complaint: Clarifies Liability of Business Partners

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 5, 2019, ruled in favor of the complainant in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case, G Ramesh v. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Anr., involved the liability of business partners in a cheque dishonor dispute. The Court set aside the Hyderabad High Court’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s ruling, confirming that the accused had sufficient involvement in the transaction to warrant prosecution.

Background of the Case

The case arose when the appellant, G Ramesh, entered into a subcontract for data entry work with Vainqueur Corporate Services, a partnership firm managed by Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal and another partner. The complainant paid a caution deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 and completed four months of data entry work from September to December 2010. However, when he attempted to collect his payments, the issued cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Key financial transactions included:

• Two cheques issued for Rs. 2,00,000 (dated November 1, 2010) and Rs. 2,50,000 (dated December 18, 2010).
• Both cheques bounced due to insufficient funds when deposited at HDFC Bank, Mahabubnagar.
• Rs. 1,00,000 was transferred to the complainant’s account in two installments as a partial payment.
• Two more cheques were issued for Rs. 2,00,000 each (dated May 30, 2011, and July 19, 2011), both of which were also dishonored.

After repeated failed attempts to collect his dues, G Ramesh filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Legal Proceedings

The case was initially filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahabubnagar. The trial court took cognizance of the complaint, but the accused, Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal, moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the proceedings. The High Court ruled in favor of the accused and quashed the case.

Petitioner’s (G Ramesh) Arguments

• The accused were actively involved in the business and directly responsible for the transaction.
• The partnership firm issued the cheques and assured the complainant that they would be honored.
• The transactions, correspondence, and conduct of the accused proved their direct involvement.
• The High Court erred in quashing the complaint without allowing trial proceedings to continue.

Respondent’s (Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Anr.) Arguments

• The accused was not actively involved in the daily affairs of the business.
• The firm was a separate legal entity, and liability should not be automatically attributed to individual partners.
• The accused was employed abroad at the time of the transaction and had no role in issuing the dishonored cheques.
• The High Court correctly ruled that the complaint lacked specific allegations against the accused.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the vicarious liability of partners for offenses committed by a firm. The Court made the following key observations:

• Partnership firms are compendious expressions for partners, meaning that liability can extend to individual partners if they are responsible for firm operations.
• The complaint contained sufficient allegations that the accused was responsible for the business and directly engaged in transactions.
• The accused had transferred partial payments, indicating his involvement in financial dealings with the complainant.
• The firm made assurances that the cheques would be honored, further implicating the accused.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 13 June 2018. The criminal complaint shall proceed in accordance with law.”

The Court reinstated the trial court’s ruling, allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused to continue.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

• Clarifies Partner Liability: Establishes that partners cannot escape liability if they are involved in business transactions.
• Protects Creditors: Ensures that individuals dealing with firms have legal recourse when payments fail.
• Prevents Misuse of High Court’s Powers: Reinforces that complaints should not be quashed prematurely when sufficient allegations exist.
• Strengthens Cheque Bounce Law: Reaffirms the legal recourse available under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in G Ramesh v. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Anr. strengthens legal protections against cheque dishonor cases. It ensures that partners actively involved in financial dealings are held accountable and prevents misuse of the quashing power by High Courts. The decision upholds the integrity of financial transactions and consumer confidence in business dealings.

Petitioner Name: G Ramesh.
Respondent Name: Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, Telangana.
Judgment Date: 05-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: G Ramesh vs Kanike Harish Kumar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Cheque Dishonour Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category