IMPORTANT POINT
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to Spite him due to private and personal grudge.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate, waives service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard today finally.

2. This application has been filed under section of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being FIR No.11191042200020 of 2020 registered with Satellite Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC.

3. The facts in brief are that on 11.01.2020, respondent No.2 herein, original complainant, filed a complaint being FIR No.11191042200020 of 2020 with Satellite Police Station inter alia alleging that original accused No.1 is a Partner of the partnership firm named M/s. Co-pack Laminators LLP, whereas original accused No.2, the applicant herein, is the wife of original accused No.1 and original accused No.3 is the father of original accused No.2.

3.1 It is the say of the original complainant in the impugned complaint that he had paid total amount of Rs.2,88,06,000/-, including gold ornaments, to the accused persons as his part of the investment in the business venture during the period between January 2017 to January 2018, which was deposited in the bank accounts of original accused No.1 and 2 respectively. Thereafter, on 30.09.2018 the accused persons, in connivance with each other, joined four other persons as partners in the partnership firm without the knowledge of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant questioned the accused as to why he was not joined as partner in the firm though he had made substantial investments. However, the complainant did not received any satisfactory reply from the original accused No.1. The complainant asked the accused persons to return the investments made by him in the firm. However, the complainant was not paid any amount nor the gold that was invested by him in the said firm despite repeated requests. Hence, the impugned complaint was filed against the accused persons.

4. Mr. B.B. Agrawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner herein never played any role, much less any active role, in the establishment or managing the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm. The petitioner, who was the wife of original accused No.1 at the relevant point of time, was made a formal partner by original accused No.1 only to set up the partnership firm and the petitioner never played any role in the decision making process of the firm. The attention of the Court was drawn to the averments made in the impugned complaint to submit that even a bare perusal of the allegations made therein does not disclose the commission of any crime by the petitioner herein. At the most, the petitioner is alleged to be a witness in whose presence the complainant and original accused No.1 had entered into some business arrangements. Apart from that, there is no other direct allegation against the petitioner herein.

4.1 It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Agrawal that the petitioner had retired as Partner of the partnership firm, named M/s. Co-Pack Laminators LLP, vide supplement deed executed on 28.09.2018 and therefore, she could not be held liable for any of the acts of the partnership firm. The attention of the Court was invited to the Supplement Deed of partnership dated 28.09.2018 to submit that the petitioner held only 7.50% share in the firm and that after the execution of the supplement deed, the petitioner ceased to be a partner in the partnership firm. Further, there exists no marital relationship between the petitioner and original accused No.1 as they got legally separated vide divorce deed dated 29.02.2020. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein.

4.2 In support of the submissions, reliance was placed upon a