MANINDERSINGH JOLLY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners original accused Nos.1 and 3 for seeking quashment of the criminal complaint in the form of FIR being I-C.R.No.106 of 2013 registered before the Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station, Ankleshwar.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the complainant is doing the business of embroidery machines in textile and is also having partnership business in the factory, namely, J.S.Chemicals situated at Plot No.4801-A-8 of GIDC, Ankleshwar. It is alleged in the complaint that there are 10 partners in the factory, namely, M/s.J.S.Chemicals which came to be started in the year 1993 and the said factory was registered on 21.5.1993. It was alleged in the complaint that on 31.1.2002, the present petitioners i.e. original accused Nos.1 and 3 along with original accused No.2 have created one false retirement deed between themselves which came to be noticed by the complainant in the year 2002 when respondent No.2 started attending the business of factory and thereby, upon an inquiry the fact of creation of retirement deed came to be noticed. Resultantly, a prejudice caused to the complainant since in collusion with each other an attempt was made to alter the structure of partnership with an intent to grab the property of the partnership. By creating such false retirement deed, names of Mr.Ashok Jain, Mr.Karan Singh Jolly were to be introduced as the partners and the said retirement partnership deed in which the signatures of the complainant along with other partners came to be forged. Said retirement deed in collusion with each other essentially by Mr. Maninder Singh Jolly, Mr.Gabharubhai Manjibhai and Mr.Ashok Jain have executed on 31.1.2002 and by virtue of said forged deed of retirement, when Mr.Ashok Jain accused No.3, has started attending the factory and interfering in banking and other administrative work of the partnership, it was upon an inquiry noticed and in addition to it, from banks also the names of other partners were deleted. On further inquiry, it was noticed that this would create a serious prejudice, on 8.5.2003 all the retiring partners lodged their specific objection in the office of GIDC as also in Bank of Baroda, Surat branch on 12.3.2003 as well as with Karurvaishya Bank Ltd. on 29.5.2003. In addition to this lodging of specific objections, it was noticed that it is upon such bogus deed, new bank account came to be opened up in Bank of Baroda, Bombay branch in the form of Current Account No.48072 and there also, the objections came to be lodged in writing on 19.5.2003. Apparently, the signatures have been forged of other partners including the present complainant and therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the impugned complaint. During the course of time, relying upon such bogus deed of retirement, a suit came to be filed by the present petitioners (original accused Nos.1 and 3) being Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 2003 against 8 partners which was later on given the new number i.e. '149 of 2006'. A fact has emerged from the complaint that there is a specific assertion of respondent No.2 herein that vide Exh.44, accused No.2 Gabhrubhai Manjibhai on 23.10.2003 had filed an application and declared on affidavit that in the said civil suit, he has not signed and therefore, it appeared to the complainant that accused Nos.1 and 3 have filed a suit fictitiously. The complainant has also specifically asserted that w.e.f. 1.4.2003 relinquishment has taken place and the civil suit came to be filed on the basis of said false and bogus deed. Said deed came to be notarized and produced by Mr.Ashok Jain (original accused No.3) on 24.4.2013. The original deed appeared to be with accused Nos.1 and 3 and therefore, when this copy of deed came to be produced on 24.4.2013, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 7.6.2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 193, 120B r/w Section 114 of the IPC and it is in this premise when the respondent was being conveyed to settle the issue to close the chapter, respondent No.2 has filed the complaint in the form of FIR which is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) On 26.6.2013, this petition came to be admitted and in the meantime, it was ordered not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with FIR being IC.R.No.106 of 2013. Said interim relief time to time has been extended and the matter has come up for final disposal.