Criminal Complaint Maintainable Even If Only One Partner Impleaded: Uttarakhand HC

Partners in a firm cannot escape liability for dishonored cheques by merely citing the non-joinder of all other partners, as the High Court of Uttarakhand has reinforced the principle of joint and several liability under the N.I. Act. The Court clarified that proceedings against even a single partner, alongside the firm, are legally sustainable since each partner acts as an agent of the entity.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. heard the criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant sought to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, relating to an offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

The Principle of Joint and Several Liability

The applicant contended that since the entity involved was a partnership firm, it was mandatory for the complainant to implead all partners to ensure the financial burden was shared equally. He argued that impleading only him, out of three partners, vitiated the complaint. However, the respondent countered that impleading even one partner ensures the firm is duly represented, citing precedents where the focus remained on the substance of the partnership liability.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A perusal of Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 would reveal that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner."

Judicial Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Sah relied heavily on the legal position established by the Supreme Court in Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar and Another ( "(2025) 10 SCC 96": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 981). The High Court noted that even if a partnership firm is not specifically named as an accused in some contexts, proceeding against partners is valid due to their compendious nature. In the present case, the firm was already arrayed as accused No. 1, and the applicant as accused No. 2.

The Court has following directions:

"The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed."

Background:

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by M/s Dashmesh Steel Centre against M/s Mudgal Construction Limited and its partner, Rakesh Thakur. The applicant (Thakur) moved the High Court to quash the case, arguing that the complaint was filed in connivance with other partners to shift the entire liability onto him. He specifically argued that the firm was not "duly represented" as only one partner was named. The Court analyzed Section 19 and Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, concluding that the applicant's status as a partner was undisputed and that his individual impleadment was sufficient to bind his liability for the firm's acts. Consequently, the High Court found no illegality in the trial court proceedings and dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Application No.1334 of 2018
NeutralCitation: 2026:UHC:6300
Case Title: Rakesh Thakur v. M/s Dashmesh Steel Centre
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(UTT) 22