The court emphasized the importance of authentic signatures, timely reporting of partnership changes to authorities, and the relevance of documentary evidence in a partnership dispute.

ORDER :

Atul Sreedharan, J.

1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 363/2020 registered for offence punishable U/s. 420, of the I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur.

2. The complainant in this case is one Abhay Singh Bhadoriya. The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant and the applicant entered into a "Deed of Partnership", at Chhatarpur on 24.03.2010 by which they formed a firm under the name and style of "M/s. Jatashankar Minerals" and the address of the Principal business was at H. No. 274, Ward No. 36, Choubey Colony, Chhatarpur, which is the address of the complainant. Thereafter, the problems started with the execution of a deed of amendment of the partnership firm whereby, the complainant had allegedly gave his consent to remove himself as a partner from the said firm and the induction of two other fresh partners, Shri Shiv Kumar Singh and Shri Giriraj Singh Parmar, both residents of Gwalior. The said amendment to the partnership firm was executed allegedly at Gwalior on 27.03.2016, but attested before the Notary at Chhatarpur on 29.03.2016. The complainant states that the said deed of amendment of the partnership was never executed by him and he continued to remain a partner and that his signatures were fabricated and forged on the said documents. Before that, an affidavit was alleged to have been executed by the complainant on 16.03.2016 again at Gwalior, and the same has been verified by the Notary on 29.03.2016 at Chhatarpur. By the said affidavit, the complainant accepts his retirement from the firm, which according to the complainant, he never executed and that this document is also fabricated.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no surreptitiousness in the manner by which the complainant left the partnership firm and that the complainant did so voluntarily without any coercion, malice or misrepresentation. In order to substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to documents filed along with I.A. No. 10109/2020 with this application. He has drawn the attention to page 4 of the Gazette notification, which is a notice to the effect that the complainant has retired from the partnership firm w.e.f. 16.03.2016 and in his place, two others mentioned hereinabove, have been inducted as partners in M/s. Jatashankar Minerals. The said notification is of 05.05.2017. Another aspect, which the learned counsel for the applicant has argued, is that at the time of arguing the 482 petition for quashment, which was filed by this applicant, which this Court had dismissed on the ground of certain suspicion that arose in the documents filed by the applicant/petitioner with regard to the manner in which the complainant had signed those documents. This Court observed that in the undisputed signatures, the complainant did not underline below his signature, but in the disputed documents, being the affidavit of 16.03.2016 and the amendment to the partnership effected on 29.03.2016, the complainant has signed under his name which was unusual. This Court had even referred the original partnership deed executed between the applicant and the complainant in the year 2010, which again did not bear a line under the signature of the complainant. That was one of the grounds on which this Court had held that there was grave suspicion with regard to commission of the offence and that the F.I.R. could not be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed additional documents and the attention of this Court has been drawn to several documents stated to have been executed by the complainant before various authorities of the State like the District Mineral Officer dated 05.06.2020, the Collector, Distt. Chhatarpur dated 19.11.2018 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur dated 11.06.2020 in which the complainant has underlined his signature. In other words, learned counsel for the a