JUDGMENT

V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against my order dated 7-3-1956 by which I had held that the Bareilly court had no jurisdiction so far as the proceedings under Sections. 406, 408 and 409 IPC were concerned. As regards the charge u/s 420 IPC I was of opinion that it would not be in the public interest to allow a prolonged criminal trial for a purely civil claim and, therefore, I had quashed the proceedings.

2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings, in brief were that there was a firm Messrs. Hira Lal Debi Pd. Ltd. having their head office at Calcutta of which opposite party No. 1 was the Managing Director and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 were its Directors. The Indian Turpentine and Rosin Company, Bareilly (hereinafter called the Bareilly Company) which at present is being managed by the State were manufacturing turpentine and rosin. On 23-5-1919 Messrs. Hira Lal Debi Pd. (hereinafter called the Calcutta firm) were appointed the selling agents for a year by the Bareilly Company and this agreement was renewed by another agreement on 15-7-1950. The quantities were to be allotted and goods were to be despatched by the Bareilly Company in its own name and the railway receipts were endorsed for delivery at Calcutta in the name of the Calcutta firm. All payments in respect of goods sold by the Calcutta firm in retail from stocks or to dealers in wagon load lots had to be deposited by the Calcutta firm into the accounts of the Bareilly Company at Calcutta. This agency was terminated on 31-8-1951 by means of a registered notice dated 28-5-1951 and on the termination of the period of the notice charge was taken at Calcutta by the Secretary of the Bareilly Company. On 9-5-1954 Sri Mukandi Lal, Secretary of the Bareilly Company lodged an information with the Superintendent of Police Bareilly charging the opposite parties with various offences, and a challan was submitted by one Mr. Gupta Inspector, C.I.D., Bareilly. On 29-6-195 - the Calcutta firm lodged suit No. 1938 of 1954 in the Original side of the Calcutta High Court against the Bareilly Company for an enquiry into the accounts in respect of the dealings and transactions of the Plaintiff and the Defendants and prayed for a decree for such sums of money as may be found due an commission. On 4-7-1952 the Bareilly Company also filed a civil suit in the court at Bareilly and both the suits are pending. The Bareilly suit has been stayed as an application is pending in this Court arising out of Section 10 CPC proceedings.

3. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the criminal proceedings at Bareilly. But that did not find favour with the learned Magistrate. Thereupon an application was moved in this Court under Sections. 435, 439 and 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Article 227 of the Constitution and it was this application which was allowed by me which has given rise to this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the Bareilly Company had taken a preliminary objection in that case that this Court had no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings u/s 561A or under Article 227 of the Constitution. That objection was overruled by me.

4. While disposing of that application I had held that this Court had jurisdiction both under its revisional jurisdiction as well as its power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings, and that this power could be exercised in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts Within the bounds of their authority. I had further held that this Court while deciding the question of jurisdiction could rely on the complaint as well as agreement which was the basis of the complaint and on such other facts which were not disputed in this Court. It may be mentioned here that in reply to the affidavit filed by the Petitioner no counter affidavit was filed and the main allegations made ther