K.N.Ojha - (1.) -Instant application has been moved by Smt. Shashi Goel under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3639 of 2003 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 437 of 1995) Modi Industries Ltd. Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad v. Dinesh, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. K. Jain learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ramesh Sinha learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and have gone through the record. The fact of the case as disclosed from the record is that Smt. Shashi Goel and Dinesh Chandra Agrawal were partner of M/s. D. S. Gas Agency, Bulandshahr. They entered into partnership on 14.1.1980 to carry on the business but according to the complainant Smt. Shashi Goel, she withdrew herself from the partnership since 1.4.1982 and Smt. Vimla Devi became partner with Dinesh Chandra Agrawal of M/s. D. S. Gas Agency. According to the Modi Industries Ltd. Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad opposite party No. 2 the M/s. D. S. Gas Agency was working as its Agent. Gas filled cylinders were given to M/s. D. S. Gas Agency and empty cylinders were to be returned to it. But cylinders worth Rs. 10 lakhs were not returned to it. Therefore a notice was sent to M/s. D. S. Gas Agency on 24.7.1993 but it was not returned and it was told that the M/s. D. S. Gas Agency has closed the business, therefore Complaint was filed before IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad specifically mentioning the names of Dinesh Chandra Agrawal and Smt. Shashi Goel the partner of the Firm M/s. D. S. Gas Agency. The learned Magistrate summoned Dinesh Chandra Agrawal and the applicant by passing an order dated 28.10.1995. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 Modi Industries Ltd. has relied on Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, AIR 1985 SC 628, wherein it has been laid down that if allegations make out the offence under Section 406, I.P.C., right to prove the case could not be denied to the complainant because the complaint prima facie disclosed the offence of breach of trust and the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
(3.) IN Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 (1) ACR 262 (SC) : 2001 SCC (Crl) 275, it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that it is settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and may also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable it does not mean that criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In Kamla Devi Agrawal v. State of West Bengal and others, 2002 (1) ACR 228 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Crl) 200, it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because of the pendency of civil proceedings between the same parties because nature and scope of standard of proof required in civil and criminal proceedings are distinct. The same law has been laid down in M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and another, 2001 (3) ACR 2740 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Crl) 19.;