SURENDER SHEDHA Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 27.9.1993 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing framing of charges under Sections 379/403 Indian Penal Code .against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant Mayank Kaushik and the petitioner started a partnership business in the year 1989. On 13.7.1989, the complainant purchased a Toaster plate Casting Die. from M/s. Satyam Engineering Works for Rs. 20,000.00. The die was given to M/s. S.R.S. Die Casting (Pvt.) Ltd. for manufacturing products on contract basis. The petitioner unauthorisedly used to get casting of toaster plates done from M/s. S.R.S. Die Casting (Pvt.) Ltd. As per prosecution case, on 2.4.1990, the petitioner, after making some payment to M/s. S.R.S. Die Casting (Pvt.) Ltd., too!', away the die with a promise to return the same to the complainant. However, the petitioner did not return it to the complainant. On 13.4.1990, the complainant lodged the FIR at the P.S. Jahangirpuri. Investigation pursuant to the said report culminated into submission of a acharge-sheet under Section 406 Indian Penal Code . against the petitioner. On consideration of the materials collected by the investigating agency, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Sections 379/4031.P.C. against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) Assailing validity of the impugned charges, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the die in question was purchased by the petitioner and so the materials collected by the prosecuting agency do not make out may offence against the petitioner. Alternatively, it was contended that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the partners are the joint owners of the partnership assets and so possession of the disputed die by the petitioner did not amount to any criminal act and such disputes can only be settled through a competent civil court.