In Brief
A dairy business filed a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a partnership firm and its two partners for a bounced cheque. One partner sought to quash the proceedings, arguing she was not involved in the firm. The High Court quashed the case, finding insufficient averments about her specific role. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that specific averments in the complaint that the partner was in charge of the firm and that the cheque was issued with her knowledge and consent were sufficient to proceed to trial. The Court held that a partner need not provide detailed particulars beyond basic statutory averments; instead, the accused must produce unimpeachable evidence proving non-involvement.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.