MAHESH GUPTA Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the complainant under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the Court of Shri M.L. Sawhney, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 in case FIR No.330/2001 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B, IPC, P.S. Prashant Vihar; and the order dated 23.3.2002 passed by the Court of Shri S.S. Bal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing the application moved by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 15.4.2001, petitioner Mahesh Gupta lodged a complaint against four accused, i.e. (i) Rajeev Gupta, (ii) Srikishan Gupta (respondent No.2), (iii) Indra Gupta, and (iv) Anita Gupta, who were partners in the firm M/s.National Meal Industries. Complainant has 5% share in this firm. Civil litigation between the parties arising out of partnership is pending; other partners of the firm with a view to defraud the complainant and to misappropriate funds of the partnership firm unauthorisedly opened a separate account in the name of the firm, in Punjab and Sind Bank, Azadpur Mandi Branch, Delhi which was being operated by respondent No.2 Srikishan Gupta and co-accused Rajeev Gupta secretly. The complainant came to know about it on 4.4.2001; he went to the bank to stop operation of the account where he was shown a forged partnership deed containing a clause that he had retired as a partner from the firm; his signature on this deed was forged. On his complaint, above-noted case was registered.

(3.) Shrikishan Gupta (respondent No.2) was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.12.2001. His earlier applications for anticipatory bail were rejected by the Sessions Court on 3.9.2001 and by the High Court on 19.11.2001. Anticipatory bail was granted to him on 20.12.2001 after co-accused Rajiv Gupta had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the Court. Petitioner challenged the bail granted to respondent No.2, but his application was dismissed by the learned ASJ on 23.3.2002. Both these orders are under challenge.