SUSHIL KUMAR UPPAL Vs. SHANKAR P JETHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The impugned order was, in turn, passed in a revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of the trial court dated 22.11.2005 whereby the trial court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner and did not issue summons to the accused. By virtue of the impugned order, the trial court order dated 22.11.2005 was set aside. The revision petition was allowed and the trial court was directed to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section 406 IPC and to proceed in accordance with law.

(2.) Reading the impugned order as well as the order passed by the trial court, it appears that both the courts have proceeded on the basis that there was a subsisting partnership between the petitioner and the respondent. It is now stated before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself was not the partner in the firm [Motor Products India], but his mother (Shanta Rani Uppal) was the partner and she has since passed away. The partnership was allegedly between the respondent and the said late Smt Shanta Rani Uppal who was arrayed as accused No. 2 in the criminal complaint filed by the respondent, the petitioner being the accused No. 1.

(3.) The trial court proceeded on the basis that both the accused, i.e., the petitioner and his mother, had authority over the funds and properties of the partnership concern and that they utilised the same under that authority. According to the trial court, the alleged mis-utilisation of the funds was a subject matter of civil disputes, but would certainly not fall within the provisions of the offence under Section 406 IPC. The trial court dismissed the complaint by its order dated 22.11.2005.