B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The accused in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2011 in the Court of learned Judicial First Class, Biswanath Chariali has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the said criminal proceeding. The immediate cause for filing this quashing application is the issuance of process by the learned Magistrate against the accused taking cognizance of offence Under Sections 181/182/199/406 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the sole respondent/complainant. In addition to the oral submissions, the learned counsels also submitted written synopsis of their argument. Besides this, I have also perused the complaint petition, initial statements of witnesses and other documents, filed with the criminal petition.

2. The gist of the complaint is that both the complainant and the accused were running a brick kiln, in the name and style of M/s. Purbanchal Brick Industries. Other than the petitioner and the respondent, two more persons were the partners of the said firm. As per mutual agreement, one of the partners was given charge of the industry per year. The accused was holding the charge for the industry for the year 2004-05. He was again given the charge of the industry for the year 2007-08.

3. The complainant's allegation is that the accused/petitioner developed ill-motive to convert the property of the firm in his individual name and also he has misappropriated the property of the firm. The other allegation of the complainant is that the accused did not submit the accounts of the business in his attempt to convert the industry in his own name. The accused/petitioner also changed the name of the firm from Purbanchal Brick Industry to Imrana Brick Industry, claiming himself to be the proprietor of the said industry. The complainant has further alleged that the accused submitted false affidavit before various statutory authorities, declaring himself as the owner of the industry.

4. As usual, the complainant's statement was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr PC and taking cognizance of the offences has issued process against the accused. Being aggrieved with the action of the learned Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offences, the sole accused has preferred this quashing petition.

5. Mr. Khatri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking cognizance of offences under Section 181/ 182/199 of the IPC is illegal in as much as the learned Magistrate did not have requisite jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of complaint, lodged by a private individual. According to the learned counsel, a Magistrate can take cognizance of the aforesaid offence only upon receipt of written complaint by public servant or by the Court, before whom a false statement has been made or a false affidavit has been given, knowing fully well that the statements are incorrect. This submission was made relying upon various provisions under Section 195, Cr PC.

6. With regard to taking cognizance under Section 406 of the IPC, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is also untenable inasmuch as there cannot be any allegation of the criminal breach of trust against a partner in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1433 : (1965) 2 SCR 429 and Anil Saran v. State of Bihar, (1995) 6 SCC 142 : AIR 1996 SC 204.

7. The criminal proceeding has further been attacked on the ground that the complainant's have also filed a civil suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Tezpur, being Title Suit No. 73 of 2010 and since the dispute is essentially of civil nature, the criminal proceeding should be quashed.

8. Per contra Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 195, Cr PC would not come in the way of taking cog