In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the procedure for serving summons on corporate bodies and firms under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The ruling came in a case involving M/S Parthas Textiles and its partner, who had challenged a summoning order in a cheque bounce case.
Case Background:
The case (Application U/S 482 No. – 11672 of 2024) was filed by M/S Parthas Textiles and its partner against the State of U.P. and another party. The applicants sought to quash a summoning order dated 27.07.2023 and a non-bailable warrant dated 08.02.2024 issued in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether a summons should be issued to a firm or its partner when the firm is the accused in a cheque bounce case.
2. The procedure for serving summons on corporate bodies and firms under the new BNSS.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, hearing the case, made several important observations:
1. When a firm is accused in a cheque bounce case, the summons should be issued to the firm, not to its partner personally.
2. The court explained the procedure under Section 65 of the BNSS for serving summons on corporate bodies: “Service of a summons on a company or corporation may be effected by serving it on the Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officer of the company or corporation, or by letter sent by registered post addressed to the Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officer of the company or corporation in India”.
3. The court noted that after receiving the summons, the company can appoint a representative to appear on its behalf as per Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Justice Deshwal observed: “From the above analysis, it is clear that if a company is arraigned as accused in a complaint, then summons ought to be issued to the company through its Principal Officer or Local Manager as mentioned in Section 63 Cr.P.C and after service of summons upon the company, as per Section 63 Cr.P.C., the company can appoint any of his representatives as per Section 305 Cr.P.C.”
The court partially allowed the application, quashing the summoning order and non-bailable warrant against the partner (applicant no.2). It directed the lower court to pass a fresh summoning order within one month, following the observations made in the judgment.
Importantly, the court clarified that despite the repeal of the Criminal Procedure Code by the BNSS, ongoing proceedings would continue as per the CrPC provisions, as stated in Section 529 of the BNSS.
