Criminal prosecution cannot be used for private vendetta in civil disputes.

The petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No.696 of 2007 dated 11. 2007 on the file of the respondent police.

2. The sum and substance of the first information report lodged by the de facto complainant with the respondent herein is as follows:-

The de facto complainant was one among the Directors/Partners enjoying equal right in respect of Hotel business viz., Picnic Hotels Private Limited at Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Because of some misunderstanding between the brothers, several civil cases are pending on the file of this High Court as well as before the Company Law Board. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta, who are the brothers of the de facto complainant, joined together and created false and fraudulent documents and produced the same before the public authorities and also before the Company Law Board as if the de facto complainant had resigned from the Directorship of Picnic Hotels Private Limited when actually he had been enjoying equal share in the entire business. The above action of the two aforesaid brothers of the de facto complainant amounts to cheating.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation found in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case under sections 465, 468 and 471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered as against the petitioners herein.

4. The petitioners would contend that M/s.Picnic Hotels Private Limited was run by Rajendra Gupta, Devendra Gupta, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, sons of late N.D.Gupta as Directors and share holders. M/s.Hotel Picnic, a partnership firm and M/s.Picnic Plaza another partnership firm were run by N.D.Gupta and his four sons. A memorandum of understand was entered into between the family members on 25. 1998 dividing the entire family members into two groups viz., Rajendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Gupta as the first group (petitioners herein) and Devendra Kumar Gupta (de facto complainant) and Sanjay Kumar Gupta as the second group. The Company Picnic Hotels Private Limited fell to the share of the first group comprising of Rajendra Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta. The partnership firm viz., Picnic Plaza fell to the share of the second group comprising Devendra Kumar Gupta (de facto complainant) and Ashok Kumar Gupta. The first and second group have been dealing with the respective business allotted to them. The second group has converted a part of the partnership business Hotel Picnic into a company known as Picnic Park Hotels Private Limited. The restaurant in Picnic Park Hotels Private Limited is still being run in the name of the partnership firm "Hotel Picnic". The first group viz., Rajendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar, the petitioners are not partners in the reconstituted partnership firm of Hotel Picnic nor are they Directors or shareholders of Picnic Park Hotels Private Limited. Hotel Picnic Plaza also was reconstituted into new partnership firm by excluding Rajendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Gupta. Both the groups effected transfer in the respective businesses pursuant to the memorandum of understanding entered into in the year 1998. All the parties have acted under the memorandum of understanding and have effected the division in status in the business. Various disputes and differences had arisen between the parties culminating in as many as 7 suits before this court and two Company Petitions before the Company Law Board. In such circumstances, there is nothing wrong in filing of returns before the Registrar of Companies showing that Devendra Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Kumar Gupta are no longer Directors or Shareholders of Picnic Hotels Private Limited. The signatures of Devendra Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Gupta were not forged for the purpose of transferring the shares. Nothing was produced to show that documents were fabricated and forged. The petitioners have been charged with the aforesaid offences just because they had given effect to the memorandum of understanding dated 25. 1998 enter