H.R.PANWAR,J. - (1.) BY the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner seeks assailing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 171/1996 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Padampur (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts which are relevant and necessary for decision of the petition are that complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 Arjun (for short 'the complainant' hereinafter), who is one of the partners of partnership firm M/s. Neelkanth Marbles, filed first information report No. 94 with the Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner and one Vijay Kumar for the offences under sections 420 and 406 IPC. Usual Investigation was carried out by the police and negative final report was filed. The complainant filed a complaint and the protest petition. On the protest petition, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under section 406 IPC and issued the process. The partnership firm M/s. Neelkanth Marbles, as per the partnership deed dt. 19.05.1991 comprising as many as four partners viz. Petitioner Hari Mohan, Yogendra Gupta, complainant Arjun and Smt. Vidhyawati, each having share of 25% was constituted. The complainant filed the FIR stating therein that all the four partners have equal share in the partnership firm. The petitioner, who had been residing at Sriganganagar, was looking after the account of the firm, he assured that he will keep the proper account. On the belief that petitioner will keep the proper account, the entire business was left with him. On 03.01.1994, the petitioner informed him that entire goods have been sold by him and he deposited the amount in bank account of the firm. On being enquired from the bank, it was revealed that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the bank account of the firm. On checking the firm, it was revealed that there was no marble cutting machine in the firm, whereas there was a marble cutting machine in the firm which according to the complainant was sold by the petitioner. On these allegations, the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that it is a civil dispute between the partners of the firm as each partner has dominion over the property of the firm. On the protest petition, the trial court took the cognizance and issued the process. Hence, this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the record of the trial Court.;