IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mukesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MPM No. 2296 of 2023
Decided on : 02-01-2024
Forgery - Partnership Dispute - IPC 403, 405, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B - The court analyzed the partnership agreement and the alleged misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. It found that the petitioner, as a partner, cannot be charged with criminal breach of trust of the firm's property. The court also noted that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot be tried together, as they require different mens rea. Additionally, the court highlighted that the documents provided by the petitioner cannot be considered forged as they were handed over blank by the suppliers. The court emphasized that bail proceedings cannot be used for recovery of the amount stated to have been mis-utilized by the petitioner. Therefore, the court allowed the bail petition and made the order absolute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of misappropriating funds and forging documents in a partnership dispute. The informant alleged that the petitioner had breached trust and committed fraud in the construction project.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a partner, cannot be charged with criminal breach of trust of the firm's property. It also noted that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot be tried together. The court emphasized that the documents provided by the petitioner cannot be considered forged as they were handed over blank by the suppliers. The court also highlighted that bail proceedings cannot be used for recovery of the amount stated to have been mis-utilized by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misappropriation of funds, forgery of documents, and the petitioner's liability as a partner in the construction project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of partnership laws, the distinction between different offences under the IPC, and the limitations of bail proceedings in recovering mis-utilized funds.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail petition and made the order absolute, emphasizing that the petitioner, as a partner, cannot be charged with criminal breach of trust of the firm's property and that bail proceedings cannot be used for recovery of the amount stated to have been mis-utilized by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The informant-Brijesh Kharbanda made a complaint to the police asserting that a firm was established in the name and style of MM Square by the petitioner-Mukesh Sharma and the informant-Brijesh Kharbanda on 03.12.2019. Both the partners agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the deed. Both the partners agreed to invest 50% amount in the business of the firm. Mukesh Sharma was empowered to purchase the land and carry out the construction and other business activities. The informant invested .1.35 Crore. The construction started in the year 2020. The petitioner was given the work of development of the project. The informant suspected that the payments were being made to un- named building material suppliers, contractors and labourers. He noticed that a large amount of cash was being withdrawn by Mukesh Sharma from the account of the firm. He visited the project site and found that minimum work was carried out by the petitioner. He could not find account books and other relevant documents. He requisitioned books of account and balance sheets of the firm but his request was not considered by the petitioner. He deputed Charan Singh Arora to supervise and inspect the daily activities. Charan Singh and Mukesh Sharma used to share the same room, as the rest of the rooms were being offered for homestay purposes. Charan Singh caught Mukesh Sharma red-handed while he was making the invoices in his own hands with the help of Narender Thakur- contractor. The informant found that Mukesh Sharma had prepared false bill books. Most of the bills were issued under the handwriting of the petitioner. Some of the fake books were obtained under the name of Ajay Kumar, Ashu traders and Kundan Lal Radhakrishnan. The bills were not genuine and on enquiry, it was found that no material was purchased from these firms. All payments were shown to have been made in cash for which, the petitioner was not authorized. The construction quality was also found to be poor. No technical/qualified person was involved. Upkar Singh, Chartered Accountant of the firm gave a few copies of the bank account with the marking of vendors with pen and few invoices. These were found to be fake. Mukesh Sharma provided photocopies of invoices and vouchers through WhatsApp. Original tax returns were also not shown. The maximum investment was made by the informant. He also received a notice from Baljeet Singh regarding the payment of liabilities outstanding to him. Baljeet Singh had not provided any services. These acts constituted fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. The police registered FIR No.93 of 2023 dated 19.08.2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 B of IPC at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.
2. The petitioner filed the present petition for seeking pre- arrest bail. It was asserted that the FIR had been lodged on distorted facts. The petitioner never committed any breach of trust. He never forged any documents. All payments were made for the genuine supply of the material. Payments were also made to the persons, who had rendered the services for the project. The complaint has been filed at the instance of Mohit Satija, brother-in-law of the informant. The petitioner started the construction work, as per the terms and conditions. He submitted the income tax return showing the assets and liabilities. The informant started harassing the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The petitioner made complaints against the informant and his brother-in-law but no action was taken. The petitioner was pressurized to give one crore to the informant and hand over his residential flat and vacant land to the informant. The petitioner did not agree to the same and multiple FIRs were lodged against him. The informant also got issued a notice through his counsel for the appointment of the Arbitrator as per the clauses of the partnership deed. The notice wa
Mohammed Ibrahim versus State of Bihar 2009 (8) SCC 751
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24
Entrustment of property under employment constitutes criminal breach of trust; conviction under Section 408 upheld despite claims of FIR delay and improper examination.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the agreement.
The court ruled that allegations of misappropriation and forgery in the FIR were unfounded, emphasizing that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal litigation.
The court established that mere partnership disputes do not constitute criminal offenses under IPC sections as no fraudulent intent was proven.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.