Judgment :

B.S. CHAUHAN, J.-

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11-11-2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Cri. Case No. 5521 of 2008 dismissing the application of the appellant filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) by which the appellant had sought quashing of a complaint under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) filed by Respondent 1.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 27-2-2002 a partnership firm in the name and style of “M/s. Ashok Traders” (hereinafter referred to as “the firm”) was constituted and a partnership deed was executed on the same date with the intention to carry on business of liquor. The firm consisted of seven partners.

3. The said partnership firm was reconstituted and a deed dated 5-3-2002 was executed inducting among others Respondent 1, namely, Shri Ajay Arora as a partner of the firm and the said firm now consisted of twelve partners. As per Clause 10 contained in the deed, the partnership firm was to be terminated on 31-3-2003.

4. The said firm participated in the excise contracts for Bhopal District for the year 2002–2003 and had been a successful bidder. The excise auctions for the year 2003–2004 were held on 06-03-2003 and the said firm participated in the auction and being a successful bidder, the contract was awarded to it.

5. Respondent 1 filed a complaint alleging that while negotiating and accepting the contract for the year 2003–2004, the reconstituted partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 was utilised, wherein the said Respondent 1 complainant had also invested a huge amount, but the said deed was subsequently replaced by a forged/fabricated deed dated 06-03-2003 in which Respondent 1 was not a partner. Respondent 1 could acquire the knowledge of such facts at a much belated stage when he preferred to enter into certain transactions with the bank.

6. Aggrieved, Respondent 1 filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 3968 of 2003 on 18-7-2003 against nine partners of the reconstituted firm alleging that the said partners had replaced the deed of partnership dated 05-03-2002 in the bank, and a forged partnership deed dated 06-03-2003 was implanted in the excise office in its place to deprive him of the profits of the firm. Respondent 1 also filed a complaint before the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh in this regard. The Chief Secretary sought a report in that respect from the Office of the Collector (Excise), District Bhopal. The Collector (Excise), District Bhopal submitted a report dated 4-9-2003 stating that the said contract had been awarded on the basis of partnership deed dated 06-03-2003 and there was no substance in the allegation made by Respondent 1 that the partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 had been replaced by partnership deed dated 6-3-2003.

7. Aggrieved, Respondent 1 filed Writ Petition No. 28262 of 2003 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking various directions for inquiry in this regard and the High Court vide order dated 05-01-2004 asked Respondent 1 to make a detailed representation to the Commissioner of Excise and if such a representation was filed, the Commissioner of Excise was directed to decide the same. In pursuance of the said order, Respondent 1 filed a representation dated 10-01-2004 before the Excise Commissioner.

8. After conducting the inquiry, Sri B.K. Vyas, Additional Excise Commissioner submitted a report dated 2-12-2005, to the effect that the excise contract was granted to the said firm on the basis of the partnership deed dated 05-03-2002 and the same stood replaced later on by partnership deed dated 06-03-2003 and the appellant, being a District Excise Officer, was responsible for such replacement as it was not practically possible to do so without his connivance.

9. Respondent 1 filed Writ Petition No. 2617 of 2007 before the Mad