Sanjay Sharma v. Dharam Dass Pathania
In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Cr.MMO 161-163/2016
Before Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Decided on August 12, 2016

Relevancy of the Case: Interpretation of Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 85)
• The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138, 139, 140)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondent was a partner in M/s Rahul Health Care. The continuing members of the firm were liable to pay thirty-five lakh rupees to each retiring partner as per the modified partnership deed.
• The respondent resigned on July 17, 2014. The post-dated cheques issued by the petitioner got dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account.
• The respondent initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The present petition seeks to quash the complaint.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the complaint is not maintainable without prosecuting the firm.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court referred to the interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Ltd. and Vijay Dange v. Saroj Thakur. It is necessary to make the company an accused for prosecuting the director and the authorised signatory of the cheque.
• The same interpretation applies to Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• In the present case, the dispute is between the continuing and retiring partners of the firm. Therefore, prosecuting the firm is not necessary.
• The court refrained from adjudicating other factual disputes.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending applications.