AJAY FOTEDAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned Judge in WP (Crl.) No. 1230/2001 decided on 12.11.2003, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No. 308/2001 which was registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, IPC at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi.

(2.) The petition was styled as an Article 226 of the Constitution, but in a sense it was a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."). Section 482, Cr.P.C. reads as under: "Section 482. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

(3.) Learned Single Judge on examination of the material has found that ihere was an agreement between the parties to carry on business of manufacturing and sale, export and import of leather goods or garments under the name and style of M/s. Samsaur Implex. There was contribution by the partners and they were to share profits and losses equally. However, after some time it transpired that the business could not run smoothly and respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the Crime Branch somewhere in October, 1999, but it seems that no action was taken. Thereafter, again in May, 2001 a complaint was lodged before the Commissioner of Police, inter alia, alleging that Ajay Fotedar had invested a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- from his own sources and also took a loan of Rs. 1,67,000/ - from the Bank of Maharashtra for investment in the said partnership business. Book of accounts were maintained by R.C. Juneja, husband of original petitioner No. 1. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1 commenced a proprietorship concern under the similar name, and opened an account in the Karnataka Bank Limited, Connaught Place, where a turnover of more than Rs. 50 lakhs has been noticed. It is alleged that the said amount reflected the price of the goods sold which were actually manufactured by the partnership concerned. It is in view of this, there was an allegation of breach of trust and misappropriation of the partnership property.