SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. -
(1.) BY means of this petition, a prayer has been advanced to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 844 of 2007 titled as `State Vs. Subhash Chand' pending in the court of 1st ACJM, Haridwar wherein learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 452, 504, 506 IPC.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the both the parties, it transpires that both petitioner Subhash Chand and respondent no. 2 Satnam Singh hail from Haridwar City. They founded a partnership Firm on dated 01.08.2006 and a Deed on the stamp paper of Rs. 1,000/- between duo was executed but the same was never got registered, as mandated by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for brevity "the Act").
The business of the partnership Firm was to supply labours and do packing works. The Firm was under the name and title of "M/s S.S. Group of Companies" and the Bank Account whereof was opened in United Bank of India, Haridwar Branch. Petitioner has submitted the Bank's Account Statement of the said Firm since 01.06.2006 to 21.03.2007. The partnership Firm could not run amicably and a dispute arose, so at least two notices were sent by Satnam to Subhash, which were replied by him. Copy of these notices has been annexed with the petition as Annexure Nos. 4 to 8. The dispute between them could not be resolved, so Satnam filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 31.01.2007 to the court of concerned Magistrate and after a lapse of more than one and a half month First Information Report could be lodged against Subhash and the matter was investigated by the police, who submitted the chargesheet on 03.06.2007 for the offence, as stated above whereupon the learned Magistrate has passed the order of cognizance on 04.09.2007 which is impugned in the present petition.
The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the contents of the notices sent by Satnam to Subhash, reply submitted by Subhash against those notices and then a further counter reply sent by Satnam to Subhash on 24.01.2007. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was mandatory for the parties to get their partnership Firm registered under Section 69 of the Act. Further even if it is read for just to understand the dispute between the parties, then it entails Clause 9 to the effect that dispute, if any, arose between the partners, then the same will be settled by the Arbitrator appointed by the mutual consent of partners. This was not done by Satnam and instead, he took recourse of filing of First Information Report, which resulted into submission of chargesheet.
(3.) ATTENTION of this Court has further been drawn towards the statement of Satnam made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer, copies whereof are annexure nos. 9 and 10 to the petition. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of respondent no. 2 that Subhash opened a separate bank account in his individual name and misused the fund worth Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). It has further been argued that by violating the terms and conditions of the Deed, Subhash undertook to do packing works of some other companies independently.
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and going through the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that lodging of FIR and then submission of chargesheet against the petitioner is a clear-cut abuse of process of law, as there is no element of cheating at all on the part of petitioner Subhash Chand against Satnam Singh, so offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. So far as, offence under Section 452 IPC is concerned, there is no such allegation that Subhash Chand committed a house trespass, after having made preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint to Satnam Singh. The allegations of Section 504, 506 IPC are definitely exaggerated version in order to make the First Information Report colourful and the Court cannot permit this type of prosecution in the trial court. In conspectus, what has been stated above, this petition has merits and liable to be allowed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 04.09.2007 as well as chargesheet submitted against petitioner engendering criminal case no. 844 of 2007 are hereby quashed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.