LAWS(SC)-2013-9-113

VINOD RAGHUVANSHI Vs. AJAY ARORA

Decided On September 23, 2013
Vinod Raghuvanshi Appellant
V/S
Ajay Arora Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 5521 of 2008 dismissing the application of the Appellant filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code of Criminal Procedure) by which the Appellant had sought quashing of a complaint under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code') filed by the Respondent No. 1.

(2.) Pacts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

(3.) Shri Ashok Shrivastava learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the application of the Appellant as the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant stood exonerated in various departmental enquiries initiated on the complaint of the Respondent No. 1. More so the High Court failed to appreciate that the complaint had been filed alter a delay of 5 years against the Appellant, though against the alleged partners of the firm, the complaint had been instituted in 2003 itself. The delay in filing the complaint by itself was a good ground for quashing the same. The complainant-Respondent No. 1 was fully aware of all the developments and there is nothing on record to show that the contract had been obtained by the said firm on the basis of the partnership deed dated 5.3.2002, and it had been subsequently replaced by the partnership deed dated 6.3.2003. The Appellant by no means can be held responsible directly or indirectly for any such act. The report dated 2.12.2005 submitted by Shri B.K. Vyas and subsequently by Shri D.R. Johri dated 1.5.2007 had not been accepted by the Stale Authorities, being based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the complaint dated 21.1.2008 is liable to be quashed.