ANWARUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-23
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 21,1996

ANWARUL ISLAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KRISHNA CHANDRA CHAUDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2002-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
V VIJAYAPRAKASH VS. STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-23] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The revisional application has been filed to quash the proceeding being Karaya P. S. Case No. 218 dated 20-9-95 (O.G.R. 3128/95) pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore and arisen out of a petition of complaint being C1297 of 1995 which was sent to the P. S. concerned under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.
(2.)The case of the accused petitioner is that the complainant being O.P. No. 2 is the senior partner of M/s. Islam and Associates, Calcutta, the other partners being accused Nos. 1 and 2 by virtue of a partnership deed dated 1-4-88. It has been alleged that the said firm received a contract from M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. for work of a chimney at Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Giridi. Pursuant to the discussion dated 16-1-93, the partners of the said firm placed a number of orders for supply of various materials on different manufacturers and engaged M/s. United Engineering Works of Begusarai at Bihar as sub-contractor to look after the labour part of the job. One Syed. Julfikar Ali of Calcutta Office was sent to Tenughat for keeing accounts of payments and expenses at the site. It has been alleged that the accused have misappropriated Rs. 15 lacs and as such the functioning of the firm became impossible pursuant to a conspiracy entered into and between the accused persons on 8-8-94 when the complainant wrote to the O.C. Karaya, P. S. on 9-9-95. As no action was taken, the petition of complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. which was sent to the O.C. Karaya P. S. for investigation.
(3.)It is alleged that the dispute arising between the parties is absolutely of civil nature between the partners and it has been given the colour of a criminal offence for the purpose of wreaking vengeance on the part of one partner against the other. It is alleged that the same facts cannot give rise to offences of cheating as welt of criminal breach of trust. There is also no allegation of cheating averred in the four corners of the complaint. It is alleged that date of alleged conspiracy is 8-8-94 and the F.I.R. was made more than a year thereafter, In terms of Clause 26 of the partnership deed, disputes arising between the partners are required to be referred to the arbitrators and as such the instant criminal case is not maintainable.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.