Shreya Banerjee Vs Ajesh Khem (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court allowed Shreya Banerjee’s criminal revision and quashed, insofar as she was concerned, proceedings in C. Case No. 75 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint arose from three dishonoured cheques aggregating Rs. 16,93,000/- issued towards occupational charges allegedly outstanding from May 2024 to August 2024 under lease and utility arrangements entered into by the partnership firm M/s Steakalicous Restauranteur. The petitioner contended that she was merely a sleeping partner, had retired from the firm pursuant to a deed of retirement dated 27.03.2023 with effect from 03.04.2023, and neither issued nor signed the cheques dated 01.09.2024, 09.09.2024 and 15.09.2024. ([TaxGuru][1])
The opposite party argued that under Sections 25, 26 and 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partners remained jointly and severally liable and that the petitioner had failed to establish public notice of her retirement. Reliance was placed on Dhana Singh Prabhu Vs. Chandra Sekhar and Ors. and Syndicate Bank Vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works and others.
The High Court noted that the complainant itself admitted that payments under the lease and utility agreements had been made up to April 2024 and that the Rs. 16,93,000/- liability related to May-August 2024, more than a year after the petitioner’s retirement. From the subsequent dealings with the reconstituted firm, the Court held that it was impliedly known to the complainant that liability for the later occupational charges rested upon the reconstituted firm.
