Judicial review under Art.226 to quash an FIR requires clear absence of any disclosed offence; circumstances must be extraordinary.

1. The scope of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the First Information Report ('FIR' for short) falls for consideration in this Writ Petition. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No. 95/99 dated 5-5-1999 of Matwada Police Station (Warangal District), registered for offences under S.406, S.417 and S.420 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition is set out as hereunder :-- The petitioner, second respondent and one Mr. B. Ramesh constitute a registered partnership firm under the name and style of 'M/s. Padmavathi Engineering Company' dealing in purchase and sale of electrical motors, P.V.C. Pipes, Oil Engines, G1 Pipes, Suguna Motors and other brand engines. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the partnership firm, the partnership business was being run and the 2nd respondent is authorised to sign cheques along with the petitioner. Since the 2nd respondent tried to take law into his own hands with the active assistance of the police, the petitioner was constrained to file W. P. No. 23791 of 1999 for a direction to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Matwada Police Station (first respondent herein) not to harass the petitioner in connection with the business disputes. The other partners in turn lodged a complaint with the Matwada Police Station against the petitioner and the same has been registered as Crime No. 95/1999 for offences under S.406, S.417 and S.420, IPC. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the FIR and it was dismissed by this Court holding that the petition seeking to quash an FIR is not maintainable. Hence the petitioner has invoked Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 95/99 of Matwada Police Station dated 5-5-1999.

3. Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act no crime has been made out against the petitioner. It is his contention that none of the offences mentioned in the FIR against the petitioner is maintainable having regard to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and there is not specific averment of entrustment to make out a case under S.406, IPC and at best only a civil suit for recovery of money is maintainable. Since this Court has dismissed quash proceedings under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that an FIR cannot be quashed, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India .

4. Separate counter - affidavits were filed by both the respondents. The 1st respondent - Sub-Inspector of Police, Matwada Police Station has stated in his counter - affidavit that the 2nd respondent, who is a partner of the firm along with the other partners, lodged a complaint on 5-5-1999 in the Matwada Police Station and it was registered as Crime No. 95/1999 under S.406, S.417 and S.420 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is under investigation. During the course of investigation it is revealed that earlier to the lodging of the complaint a Panchayat was held between the partners and the petitioner agreed to pay back Rs. 17 lakhs which he has misappropriated by diverting the amounts of the firm to his personal account. Apart from this, as a result of investigation it came to light that the petitioner without knowledge and consent of the other partners of the firm, opened a separate bank account in the name of the firm in Kakateeya Grameena Bank, Banapuram with apparent collu