ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as also Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 379 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a bare perusal of the first information report together with the copy of the complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 222 of 2015 which is the basis of lodging of the FIR it would appear that the opposite party no. 2 moved directly to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by filing a complaint petition. In the complaint petition, there was no averment at all that the opposite party no. 2 had approached the jurisdictional police station or had followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. The complaint petition was not even supported by affidavit, still on the oral prayer of learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, the learned CJM forwarded the copy of the complaint case to the SHO of Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna to investigate the matter. The SHO of the police station registered a first information report.

4. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, learned counsel submits that the very lodgment of the first information report would be in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. It is further submitted that on a bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint petition, it would appear that both the parties were running a security agency under partnership. The allegation of the complainant is that on the representation of the petitioner that both of them will work together and from that work they will derive good income, respondent no. 4 had agreed to start the business and at the instance of the petitioner he had invested a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as capital. It is further alleged that during the continuance of the business, the respondent no. 4 was not given his due share and the petitioner was always withdrawing more than his due share. In this regard, the respondent no. 4 is said to have requested the petitioner on many occasions but no heed was paid to his request.

6. It is lastly alleged that on 28.07.2014, the accounting of the security agency was done and the respondent no. 4 was found entitled to receive a sum of Rs.18,80,000/-. It is then alleged that the petitioner promised to return the amount and liquidate the security agency but despite lapse of 3 months time and repeated contact over telephone, the petitioner did not pay the amount. The allegation is that when the respondent no. 4 contacted the petitioner, he was abused and beaten.

7. Learned counsel submits that the allegation of abuse and beatings is nothing but an ornamental allegation against the petitioner. No such information was ever given to any police station by respondent no. 4. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 supp. (1) SCC 335 = AIR 1992 SC 604 and Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1. It is submitted that without adding or subtracting anything out of the complaint petition, it may be easily concluded that a pure and simple civil dispute over sharing of profit in a partnership has been given colour of a criminal proceeding.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has opposed the application. It is his submission that right from the beginning the petitioner had no intention to pay the due amount of the respondent no. 4 and he was acting with an intention to cheat the respondent no. 4 which ultimately resulted in the misappropriation of the huge amount which became due to the respondent no. 4 on final accounting.

9. It