RAMESHBHAI MASHOTBHAI CHOWDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, I have heard both the sides of merits at length and, therefore, I proceed to decide the matter finally by issuing Rule.

(2.) Chowdhury Ramjibhai Mashotbha original accused in Criminal Case No. 17 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visnagar has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the said complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 Chowdhury Jethabhai Laljibhai.

(3.) Respondent No. 2-Chowdhury Jethabhai has lodged his private complaint of Criminal Case No. 172 of 1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visnagar. It is his case that on 23rd October, 1976 the present petitioner i.e. accused in the case and the complainant had started partnership business in the name of "Raj Construction Company". Partnership deed was also executed between the parties but as subsequently the present petitioner-accused was elected to the District Panchayat, Mehsana, he retired from the partnership firm on 1st July 1997 and in his place his brother Becharbhai became the partner. It is further case of the complainant that the petitioner-accused also doing another business of his own and it was carried on by him in the name of "Davol Transport Company". It is his further case that Raj Construction Company had purchased one truck bearing No. GIF 3205 in S.Y. 2033, i.e. on 1st November 1976 for an amount of Rs. 68,000/- for the business of Raj Construction Company. Towards the price of the said truck, certain amounts were paid to the present petitioner. It is his further allegation that the business of Raj Construction Company was conducted at the office of Davol Transport Company and the accountants of Davol Transport Company Shri Shankar A. Pandya and Shri Chhanalal Shah were writing the accounts of Raj Construction Company. It is his further claim that even after the retirement of the present petitioner, the said accountants were writing the accounts under his instructions and the accused petitioner was taking active interest in the businsss of Raj Construction Company and his brother Becharbhai was looking after the agricultural operations. It is his further claim that the accounts for the period running between 25.12.1978 and 1.1.1979 were settled and from the books of accounts it was found, as claimed by the present petitioner, that the amount of Rs. 1,05,687/- was payable by Raj Construction Company tc Davol Transport Company. It is his further case that thereafter there was settlement between the parties and it was agreed that in lieu of the said amount of Rs. 1,05,687/- Raj Construction Company should pay Rs. 95,000/- and in lieu of the said payment the truck bearing No. GTF 3205 was transferred in favour of the present petitioner. It is his further complaint that thereafter the complainant respondent No. 2 wanted the said truck and he approached the present petitioner and the petitioner had agreed to sell the said truck to him for an amount of Rs. 90, 000/- and he paid the same amount and got the said truck. It is his further case that thereafter he went through the books of accounts of Raj Construction Company and found that the balance of the amount shown as payable by Raj Construction Company to Davol Transport Company by the petitioner was incorrect and as a matter of fact the amount of Rs. 23,327-34 was paid in excess to the present petitioner and the said amount was payable by him to the complainant. Therefore, in the circumstances he has filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1981 to get the decree for that amount and other amount totalling Rs. 1,15,294/- in the Civil Court and that the said suit is pending.