V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against my order dated 7-3-1956 by which I had held that the Bareilly court had no jurisdiction so far as the proceedings under Sections. 406, 408 and 409 I.P.C. were concerned. As regards the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. I was of opinion that it would not be in the public interest to allow a prolonged criminal trial for a purely civil claim and, therefore, I had quashed the proceedings.
(2.) The facts giving rise to these proceedings, in brief were that there was a firm Messrs. Hira Lal Debi Pd. Ltd. having their head office at Calcutta of which opposite party No. 1 was the Managing Director and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 were its Directors. The Indian Turpentine and Rosin Company, Bareilly (hereinafter called the Bareilly Company) which at present is being managed by the State were manufacturing turpentine and rosin. On the 23rd May 1949 Messrs. Hira Lal Debi Pd. (hereinafter called the Calcutta firm) were appointed the selling agents for a year by the Bareilly Company and this agreement was renewed by another agreement on the 15th July, 1950. The quantities were to be allotted and goods were to be despatched by the Bareilly Company in its own name and the railway receipts were endorsed for delivery at Calcutta in the name of the Calcutta firm. All payments in respect of goods sold by the Calcutta firm in retail from stocks or to dealers in wagon load lots had to be deposited by the Calcutta firm into the accounts of the Bareilly Company at Calcutta. This agency was terminated on 31st August, 1951 by means of a registered notice dated 28th May 1951 and on the termination of the period of the notice charge was taken at Calcutta by the Secretary of the Bareilly Company. On 9-5-54 Sri Mukandi Lal, Secretary of the Bareilly Company lodged an information with the Superintendent of Police Bareilly charging the opposite parties with various offences, and a challan was submitted by one Mr. Gupta Inspector, C.I.D., Bareilly. On the 29th June 1954 - the Calcutta firm lodged suit No. 1938 of 1954 in the Original side of the Calcutta High Court against the Bareilly Company for an enquiry into the accounts in respect of the dealings and transactions of the Plaintiff and the Defendants and prayed for a decree for such sums of money as may be found due an commission. On the 4th July 1952 the Bareilly Company also filed a civil suit in the court at Bareilly and both the suits are pending. The Bareilly suit has been stayed as an application is pending in this Court arising out of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code proceedings.
(3.) A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the criminal proceedings at Bareilly. But that did not find favour with the learned Magistrate. Thereupon an application was moved in this Court under Sections. 435, 439 and 561A, Criminal Procedure Code as also under Article 227 of the Constitution and it was this application which was allowed by me which has given rise to this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the Bareilly Company had taken a preliminary objection in that case that this Court had no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Section 561A or under Article 227 of the Constitution. That objection was overruled by me.;