ORDER : 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the instant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Petitioner intends to challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”) by the Respondent-Complainant against the Petitioners through Complaint Case No. 395/2023 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur: (3) Facts leading to the instant case are that the petitioners have issued two post dated cheques in favour of respondent dated 15.12.2022 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- (total of Rs. 12,50,000/-) which was dishonoured therefore, the complainant filed complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur under Section 138 of the NI Act. During pendency of the complaint case, the petitioners have filed application which was rejected. Against the said order the petitioners have filed criminal revision before the revisional court and the learned revisional court vide its order date 15.05.2024 affirmed the same and dismissed the revision. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 by the learned revisions court as well as the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is illegal and against the facts and law. He submits that the both the courts have failed to appreciate the ingredients of the NI Act as the provisions of Section 143-A has not been complied with. He submits that the both the courts have failed to see that the petitioner No. 2 is not the partner of the M/s. Techno Dealers nor has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 has already filed application in her favour and produced the partnership deed. In the clause 12 of the said deed, it is clear that if any legal responsibility arises, the Mulchand Jain would be responsible and unfortunately, he died. After his death the complainant fulfilled the blank cheques which got dishonored. He submits that the complainant has misused the cheque issued by late Mulchand Jain for which the petitioner No. 2 is not responsible nor she has received any amount from the complainant. After his death the complainant fulfilled the blank cheques which got dishonored. He submits that the complainant has misused the cheque issued by late Mulchand Jain for which the petitioner No. 2 is not responsible nor she has received any amount from the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had presented the cheques 9 months after the death of Mulchand Jain and therefore he prays that the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the revisional court as well as the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur be quashed. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Susela Padmavathy Amma vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Arising Out of Special leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12390-12391 of 2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent denying the averments made by the counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a settled position of law that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage. Since the proceedings are pending before the trial court and it is at the stage of framing of charge, appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner to raise all the grounds as stated in the petition before the trial court. He submits that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that two cheques bearing amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 10,00,000/- (total of Rs. 12,50,000/-) in favour of the respondent were dishonored on presentation, leading to filing of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the learned JMFC, Raipur and subsequently, the petitioners have filed application before the trial court for dismissal fo the complaint which was rejected and against they have filed criminal revision before the revisional court which was also dismissed. He submits that the petitioners being the partners of the petitioner firm, they are jointly and vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act which reads as under: If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation - For the purposes of this section: (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. (b) “director” in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that he has filed complaint against the partnership firm as well as its partners who are the legal heirs and are liable for the debts and liabilities of the firm as partners under Section 141 of the NI Act as well as Sections 48 and 49 of the Partnership Act, 1932. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that he has filed complaint against the partnership firm as well as its partners who are the legal heirs and are liable for the debts and liabilities of the firm as partners under Section 141 of the NI Act as well as Sections 48 and 49 of the Partnership Act, 1932. He submits that being the partners of the petitioner-firm, the petitioners are prima facie liable for the debt and the defence raised by the petitioners in the present petition is subject matter of trial and the same cannot be considered at the preliminary stage for quashing the complaint of the respondent without giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties to adduce evidence before the trial Court. Hence, the instant petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. He has placed his reliance in the mater of Ratnish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC Online SC 513 and Nikunj Keyal vs. M/s. Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC Online Cal 1127. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. The complainant is supposed to know only generally as to who were in charge of the affairs of the company or firm, as the case may be. The other administrative matters would be within the special knowledge of the company or the firm and those who are in charge of it. In such circumstances, the complainant is expected to allege that the persons named in the complaint are in charge of the affairs of the company/firm. The final judgment and order would depend on the evidence adduced. Criminal liability is attracted only on those, who at the time of commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. But vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners ‘qua’ the firm. This would make them liable to face the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic conviction. Hence, they are not adversely prejudiced if they are eventually found to be not guilty, as a necessary consequence thereof would be acquittal. 8. This would make them liable to face the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic conviction. Hence, they are not adversely prejudiced if they are eventually found to be not guilty, as a necessary consequence thereof would be acquittal. 8. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that the accused/partner of the firm was aware about each and every transaction. But vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners ‘qua’ the firm. This would make them liable to face the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic conviction. Hence, they are not adversely prejudiced if they are eventually found to be not guilty, as a necessary consequence thereof would be acquittal. 9. Section 138 of the N.I. Act treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. To attract an offence under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. The contention of the petitioner is that the Respondent has subsequently presented the cheques after nine months the death of the petitioner No. 1 and he has misused the cheques given by the deceased with malicious intent. 10. The petitioner No. 3 is not a partner in of the firm and his partner ship deed is pending and the respondent is also aware of the fact. Neither the cheque was issued by the petitioner No. 3 nor the signature is there on the cheque. Petitioner No. 2 has also filed application support of her case and has presented the partnership deed of M/s. Techno Dealers firm in which clause 12 of the partnership deed clearly states that whatever legal liability is there, Mulchand Jain will be responsible for it. In the partnership deed it has been mentioned at Para 12 that: “The party No. 1 Shri Moolchand Jain shall be managing partner, who shall manage and carry on the business of the partnership to the best of his ability and judgment for the greatest common advantage of both. In the partnership deed it has been mentioned at Para 12 that: “The party No. 1 Shri Moolchand Jain shall be managing partner, who shall manage and carry on the business of the partnership to the best of his ability and judgment for the greatest common advantage of both. He shall only be responsible for any breach of provisions of Central and State laws i.e. he shall be responsible for obedience and observances of rules, regulations and acts and shall keep other partner and firm absolve from all civil and criminal liabilities. Further in Para 20, it has been mentioned that: “20. Each partner shall upon dissolution of the partnership, execute all such deed or documents and shall do all such things as would be necessary for speedy winding up of the affairs of the partnership and for mutual indemnity and release as may be required.” It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 was partner of the firm. Therefore prima facie being the partner of the firm, the petitioner No. 2 is liable for the debt and the defence raised by the petitioner No. 2 is the subject matter of trial. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and the complaint case initiated by the Respondent against the Petitioner No. 3 deserves to be and is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the proceeding before the trial court against petitioner No. 1 and 2 shall go on.