JYOTI PERSHAD Vs. RAM AVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out a complaint filed by Ram Avtar, respondent No. I, against his father, petitioner No. I, his brother petitioner No. 2, and a cousin, petitioner No. 3, on the allegations that the petitioners were party to a conspiracy to defraud the complainant to commit acts of misappropriation and in furtherance of the conspiracy, the petitioners committed offences of fraud, misappropriation, forgery and using forged documents in the Civil Court and certain authorities thereby committing offences under Section 406, 420,467, 568 and 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code . The complaint, which is rather clumsily drawn, is an apparent sequal to disputes between Ram Avtar, on the one hand, and his father and brother, on the other, and has its genesis in the family partnership in the name and style of M,s. Silco, of which the complainant was a partner. The partnership apparently holds valuable premises, apart from business and it appears that on account of disputes in the family, the complainant was excluded from the benefit of the partnership sometimes in 1977. The deed of partnership apparently contained an arbitration clause and in December, 1977, the complainant invoked Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator in the dispute. In the course of proceedings on petitioner No. I and 2 set up adeed of dissolution that Application, which are still pending/purporting to have been signed by the complainant by way of defence and raised the plea that by virtue of the dissolution, the arbitration clause was no more available to the complainant. The complaint is based on allegations that the deed of dissolution as indeed, certain other documents, including a receipt and form No. 12, filed by the petitioners I and 2 in the Civil Court and in the Income- tax Department respectively, purporting to have been signed by the complainant were, in fact, never signed by the complainant and were forged documents. The complainant further alleged that the complainant had been deprived of the benefit of the partnership and large amounts, to which the complainant would have been entitled, has been misappropriated by petitioners I and 2. The complainant also made a vague allegation that petitioner No, 3 was party to the conspiracy but does not attribute any particular role to the said petitioner. The complainant had also impleaded two officers of the Grindlays Bank. In support of the complaint, the complainant however, contended himself by summoning the records of the civil proceedings and the Income-tax department. He also examined one Lalit Mohan Bansal who merely stated that he used to see the complainant in the Connaught Place shop with the name and style of Silco, alongwith his father, doing the business of cloth. The complainant examined himself as P.W. 5 and reiterated the allegations made by him in the complaint. In his statement the complainant stated that the dissolution deed and the other documents were not signed by him and were forged and that these had been filed by the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in the Civil Court and in the Income-tax Office. The statement further makes a vague allegation that the petitioners conspired to defraud and misappropriate the complainant's share of profit of the firm, The statement also repeat the allegation in the complaint that petitioner No. 3 and the officials of the Bank "helped" petitioners 1 and 2 in cheating the complainant and in the disposal of partnership funds. On the basis of this material, the trial court rightly declined to summon the officials of the bank but held that there was sufficient grounds summoning petitioners 1 to 3 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint, as against the Bank officials, was, however, dismissed.

(3.) FOR all these reasons, it would be an abuse of the process of a criminal court to allow the proceedings on the complaint to continue against any of the petitioners. The proceedings of complaint pending in the court of Shri Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi are according quashed. The bail bonds, if any, filed by the petitioner stand discharged.