Suppression of material facts and dispute between partners of the firm influenced the court's decision.

I.A. No. 1684 oJ2012

By the Court.-This interlocutory application has been filed for deleting the name of petitioner No.1. Joginder Chand Kapur. who died on 24.10.12 in, a Hospital in the State of Karnataka and to this effect the death certificate of petitioner No. 1 has also been brought on record.

Accordingly. the name of petitioner No.1, Joginder Chand Kapur is deleted from the cause title of this case.

This interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed.

Cr. Revision No. 641 of 2007

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. No one appears on behalf of the complainant-Opp. Party No. 2 in spite of repeated calls. It appears that on• earlier occasion also no one had appeared on behalf of the complainant and the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to the counsel of the complainant Opp. Party No.2. In spite of repeated calls today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant Opp. Party No.2.

3. The petitioner, Sunil Kapur is aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.07 passed by Sri A.K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Koderma, in complaint case No. 382 of 2004, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge. under Section 245, Cr PC, has been rejected by the Court below.

4. The petitioner has been made accused along with one Amit Jaiswal and the deceased Joginder Chand Kapur in complaint case No. 382 of 2004, filed by the complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. In the complaint petition it is stated that the complainant is a partner of M/s Ramchand Jagdish Chand, having its office near Gayatri Mandir, Byepass Road, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma, and on the date of occurrence, accused No. 1 Amit Jaiswal along with five unknown culprits entered into the building and office of the firm and they took the photographs of the building and office of the complainant and removed some file containing valuable documents. Alleging criminal conspiracy against the petitioner in the said occurrence, this complaint petition has been filed for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 380 and 120-B, IPC. It is specifically alleged that the accused Amit Jaiswal came and committed the theft of the file, which contained the valuable documents. So far as this petitioner is concerned, it is only alleged that there was connivance and conspiracy of this petitioner in the alleged crime. It appears that on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded on the solemn affirmation, the primafacie case was found against the accused persons and the process was issued. Subsequently, three witnesses were examined by the Court below before charge, and thereafter the petitioner filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below.

5. The Court below, has not mentioned in the impugned order any material available against the petitioner in the evidence before charge and has only stated that it is settled principle of law that in the stage of charge, the meticulous examination of evidence is not required, and rejected the application filed by the accused persons.

6. It is thus, clear, that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. However, I have also gone through the evidence before charge in the Court below, which has been brought on record. Three witnesses were examined before charge. CW -1 is the complainant. Dilip Kapur himself. who was stated that he was not present on the date of occurrence at Koderma. but he was informed that the accused. Amit Jaiswal along with five hooligans entered into the property of the firm and they took the photographs and they also took away some important files. which contained valuable information. It is stated that the surviving petitioner. Sunil Kapur and other accused Jagdish Chand Kapur had sent the other accused under the criminal conspiracy. When this witness was put to cross-examined before charge. he has admitted that in the said firm the complainant's share is only 7%. whereas th