ATUL DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of CrPC seeking relief of quashment of F.I.R. registered in crime No. 0231/2020 police station Pipariya, District Kabeerdham, C.G. for offence under Sec. 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent no. 2 lodged report to the concerned police station making allegation against petitioner stating that petitioner, respondent no. 2 and one Yogeshwar Raj Singh established a partnership firm in the name and style as "Samriddhi Sugar Mills". As per the written deed of partnership the bank account or any other account related to the firm has to be operated under joint signature of any two parties to the deed but the petitioner himself by signing a cheque at two places withdrawn the money and thereby misappropriated the amount of partnership firm. There is further allegation that petitioner issued cheque under his own signature for purchase of sugarcane which was dishonored. F.I.R. was registered on 31/7/2020 for the aforementioned offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged against him in the F.I.R. Earlier one Mr. Deepak Sharma was carrying out the business of manufacturing and sale of Jaggery (Gur), Raab and Husk along with the present parties under written deed of partnership, later on due to some personal reasons Deepak Sharma quit the partnership firm and new partnership deed was executed on 20/11/2014. Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were having share to the extent of 42.5% each and remaining 15% share was held by Yogeshwar Raj Singh. Partnership continued for about two years and during this period several cheques were issued for the purchase of raw material and disbursement of payments to the farmers against the sugarcane purchased by the firm. The business of mill was closed in between 2016-18 because Respondent No. 2 failed to perform his part. From perusal of the contents of complaint it is apparent that earlier transactions were taken place on 4/12/2015, 5/1/2016 and 6/1/2016 was six years ago. The cheques issued by petitioner were in representative capacity with the consent of other partners. Several other transactions have taken place in the like manner earlier also but none of the other two partners of the firm raised any objection or allegations as they were aware about all the transactions. The cheques were issued in the representative capacity being one of the partners authorised by the Firm and other partners. There are no ingredients of cheating. For attracting the alleged offence, there must be fraudulently, dishonestly inducement of any person so deceived or likely to cause any damage or harm to that person, body, mind, reputation or property. No such material is available. The alleged cheques were issued two years back in favour of farmers from whom sugarcane was purchased, none of the farmers have made any complaint against petitioner or their firm regarding issuance of cheque whereas said cheques were not deposited for encashment by farmers in their bank account and therefore no criminal offence would be attracted. Petitioner signed the cheque being one of the partners and therefore offence under Sec. 468 and 471 would not be attracted. He lastly contended that prima facie no material is available against petitioner in the F.I.R. so as to connect him in the aforementioned crime and therefore the F.I.R. registered against petitioner bearing crime no. 0231/2020 dtd. 31/7/2020 registered at police station Pipariya District Kabirdham be quashed. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal [(2007) 7 SCC 373], Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttranchal [(2007) 12 SCC 1], Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd., and others), [(2009) 8 SCC 751], Robert John D'souza vs. Stephen V. Gomes [(2015) 9 SCC 96] and Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal [(2022) 7 SCC 124].