SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(MP) 742

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. P. Awasthy
GOVIND DAS BIYANI - Appellant
Versus
BADRI NARAYAN RATHI - Respondents
Misc. Cril 31 Of 1992
Decided On : 09/07/1994

Advocates Appeared:
P.S.GOTHALVAL, V.S.Shroti

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397(3) & 482- Though second revision can not be filed in garb of petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. but petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. can be filed to prevent abuse of process of court. (Para 9)

       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition to quash summoning order & proceedings u/s 380 I.P.C. in a complaint case - Petitioners, partner in firm, were alleged to have misappropriated funds & did not pay anything to complainant partner - Nature of dispute is purely of civil nature - No question of entrustment of any property to any particular partner arises - Proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 10 & 11)

       Result: Petition allowed.

       

R. P. AWASTHY, J.

( 1 ) BY filing the present petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. it is being sought that the complaint filed by the non-applicant against the present petitioners be quashed.

( 2 ) FACTS of the case are as below: The petitioner and the non-applicant are partners of a firm. The present non-applicant filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, alleging, inter alia, that the accounts of the said partnership firm used to remain in the custody of petitioner No. 4 who was responsible for maintaining the said accounts. It has been further alleged that from the month of March 1989 petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 in collusion with petitioner No. 4 conspired to commit criminal breach of trust by fraudulently depriving the present non-applicant of his share and earnings of the said firm and usurping amount of the said firm. To fulfil the said conspiracy, the said partners of the firm kept the present non-applicant away from the accounts of the said firm from the month of March 1989. Thereafter no amount was paid to the present non-applicant. The said firm obtained payments of rupees four lacs from the Public Health Engineering Department of Bhopal Division and about nine lacs from Rajgarh, Sehore, Shahjapur, Guna and Raisen but no accounts of the said payment, was supplied to the present non-applicant. Nevertheless, the present petitioner No. 4 confessed before the witnesses of the complainant/non-applicant that the said amount had been received by the said firm.

( 3 ) IT has further been alleged in the said complaint that the said partnership firm possesses the articles detailed in para 4 of the said complaint. The partners of the said firm sold one truck belonging to the said firm. The non-applicant demanded from petitioner No. 4, to give him account of the firm but the present petitioners did not give the said accounts of the firm to him. On the other hand, they misbehaved with him and criminally intimidated him. Thus, in spite of repeated demand, the present petitioners were not giving the accounts of the said firm to the present nonapplicant. On the said basis, it was alleged by the complainant/present non-applicant that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 380, Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) AFTER recording the statement of the complainant and making an enquiry under section 203, Cri. Procedure Code, the trial Court registered an offence punishable under section 380, I. P. C. , against the present petitioners.

( 5 ) THE present petitioners filed a revision petition against the said order which was rejected.

( 6 ) NOW, the petitioners by filling the present petition seek quashing of the said order section 482 Cri. Procedure Code.

( 7 ) IT has been argued for the petitioners that even if the entire complaint, as it is, is believed, no case for alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 380, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the present petitioners. Even if, every word of the complaint is believed, the case or dispute is of purely civil nature and registration of the complaint for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, is obviously and clearly abuse of the- process of the Court.

( 8 ) IN reply, it has been submitted by the non-applicant that since it is a second revision in the garb of a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, this petition is not maintainable. It has been further urged that since the complaint has been registered and process has been issued by the trial Court, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to approach the trial Court itself and submit please raised in the present petition in that Court. The said matter cannot be agitated in the High Court by filing a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

( 9 ) IT is obvious that sub-section (3) of section 397 bars only a second revision petition and the authority reported in Dharampal v. Ramabri, does not abrogate-or annul the pow








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top