Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.
Vikram Capoor - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P And Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. - 5323 of 2013
Decided On : 17-01-2015
Forgery - Family Business Dispute - Section 355, 409, 504, 506 IPC - The judgment discusses the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a family business dispute involving allegations of forgery and criminal breach of trust. The court considered the legal provisions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The court found that the proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motives, and therefore exercised its inherent power to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Vikram Capoor, was involved in a family business dispute with Ani Capoor, his aunt and business partner. Ani Capoor filed multiple criminal complaints against the petitioner, alleging forgery, criminal breach of trust, and other offenses. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the disputes had been settled through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and that the criminal complaints were an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motives, and were an abuse of process. The court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the availability of alternative remedies, the right to file a fresh complaint during the pendency of an appeal, the admissibility of documents not part of the trial court record, and the abuse of process by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C could be invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The court also considered the settlement of disputes through the MOU and the manifest malice and ulterior motives behind the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint and summoning order against the petitioner, finding that the proceedings were an abuse of process and manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motives.
By means of the present petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (For short ''Cr.P.C.') the petitioner Vikram Capoor has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 209 of 2013, Ani Capoor Vs. Vikram Capoor pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow and also the order impugned dated 25th September, 2013, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under sections 355, 409 504 and 506 IPC.
2. Brief facts germane to the present case are that petitioner is a nephew of opposite party no. 2 Ani Capoor. A business in the name of M/s Capoor Hotel and Restaurant was running in the partner-ship of petitioner and opposite party no. 2. Both were partners of equal share i.e. 50% each. The partnership deed was executed in between them. During continuance of the partnership some dispute arose and opposite party no. 2 made applications to the Station Officer of police station Hazratganj, District Lucknow on 7.5.2007 and on 8.5.2007 and also to S.S.P. Lucknow on 9.5.2007 by sending the same by registered post alleging therein that petitioner with intention to cause pecuniary loss to the opposite party no. 2 and with mala fide intention prepared a forged acknowledgement dated 22.3.2007 along with receipts thereof by making forged signature of opposite party no. 2, by which a letter (notice of proceedings) dated 21.3.2007 was said to be served upon opposite party no. 2. This forged acknowledgement was used in the arbitration proceedings pending in the court of District Judge, Lucknow by the petitioner with intention to deprive her from legal rights to contest. This all has been done by the petitioner to dislodge her from the partnership property with connivance of courier company.
3. Opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with similar allegation on 11.5.2007 (Annexure no. 3 to this petition). which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 447 of 2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the same by means of order dated 27.5.2007 on the ground that application under section 340 Cr.P.C. was given before District Judge where forgery was committed. In this regard what proceeding has been done by the District Judge, has not been mentioned by the opposite party no. 2 nor any order of the District Judge has been filed by her.
4. Opposite party no. 2 moved another application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C on 19.5.2007 (Annexure no. 5 to this petition) alleging therein that partnership deed was executed in between petitioner and opposite party no. 2 on 31.10.1995 and the same was signed by them. The petitioner with intent to cause pecuniary loss to opposite party no. 2 and with mala fide intention prepared forged documents on different dates by manipulating the bills of hotel and the amount under the bills paid by the customers was misappropriated by the petitioner. The bills have been removed from the computer. As such the petitioner has also committed criminal offence by causing pecuniary loss to Trade Tax Department. It was also alleged that in terms of partnership deed the income of the hotel has to be deposited in CC Account No. 253 of Capoor Hotel and Restaurant with Federal Bank Ltd. Vidhan Sabha, Lucknow but the same was not deposited with the aforesaid bank, which was actually deposited in the personal account of petitioner having Account No. 0294000100723466 in Punjab National Bank, Hazratganj, Lucknow. As such he committed breach of trust. He also prepared forged documents by making fictitious signature of opposite party no. 2 thereon so that the entire amount under partnership deed shall be deemed to be paid to her and false balance-sheet has been prepared and used as genuine by filing the same before trade tax authority. It was also alleged that on 8.5.2007 at about 9.00 p.m. the opposite party no. 2 made a complaint of all these things to the petitioner. The petitioner abused her in filthy language and put his licens
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
