Partner Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheque Bounce Under Sections 138 and 141 NI Act Merely Because Cheque Was Issued for Firm’s Liability; Signatory Alone Liable When Cheque Drawn From Personal Bank Account: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Tania Thakur v. Aditya Chopra, Proprietor of M/s Luftan Industries
Date of Judgment: 08.10.2026
Citation: CRM-M-54438-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a partner of a firm cannot be subjected to prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, merely because a dishonoured cheque was issued towards discharge of the firm’s liability, where the cheque was drawn from another partner’s personal bank account and signed exclusively by that partner.
The Court clarified that the liability for dishonour of such a cheque rests with the individual account holder and signatory, and cannot be extended to another partner solely on the basis of their association with the firm or the underlying commercial liability.
Summary: The dispute arose from a rent agreement dated 25.03.2022 between M/s Luftan Industries and M/s Gusto Steels and Forging Industry, under which premises and machinery were rented for ₹1,40,000 per month. Tania Thakur and her mother, Priya Thakur, were partners in the latter firm.
A post-dated cheque for ₹1,40,000, issued towards the firm’s rental liability, was dishonoured, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Both partners were summoned to face trial.
Tania Thakur challenged the summoning order, contending that the cheque had been issued and signed exclusively by Priya Thakur from her personal Kotak Mahindra Bank account. Consequently, she could not be prosecuted merely because she was also a partner in the firm.
The High Court examined Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act and relied upon Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna, 2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 265, and Sanjeev Vijaya Rao Betigeri v. Bharti Telemedia Ltd., CRM-M-30361-2019, decided on 14.08.2026.
The Court observed that although the cheque was issued towards discharge of the firm’s liability, the account belonged exclusively to Priya Thakur, who was also its sole signatory. Therefore, the petitioner’s status as a partner did not independently attract criminal liability under Sections 138 and 141.
The Court also noted that in two other cheque dishonour complaints involving the same firm, only Priya Thakur had been summoned, whereas the petitioner had additionally been summoned in the present proceedings.
Decision: The High Court quashed the cheque dishonour complaint, summoning order dated 13.09.2022, revisional order dated 06.09.2023 and all consequential proceedings qua Tania Thakur alone.
The Court held that liability under the NI Act rested with Priya Thakur, being the holder of the personal bank account from which the dishonoured cheque was issued and its sole signatory.