GRAHADURAI Vs. SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, against whom the respondent has preferred a complaint for offences u/ Ss.406, 420 and 477-A I.P.C. pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi as SC No.3 of 1990 invoke the inherent powers of this Court u/S.482 Cr. P.C. to quash the above proceedings.

(2.) The allegations made in the complaint are briefly as follows : Petitioners 1,2 and the respondent are brothers and the 3rd petitioner is the sons of the second petitioner. They and one Ramamurthy and one A. B. Athiban are partners of the National Fire Works Factory by virtue of a partnership deed dated 24-3-1983, the principal place of business being No.74/1. Police Station Rc,ad, Sivakasi. The above National Fire Works Factory consists of several units numbering 32 as mentioned in the complaint. The first petitioner being the eldest of the partners had been managing the day-to-day administration of the fire and was carrying on all the business transactions for and on behalf of t he partners. Under a special agreement, he was entrusted with this administration and was having dominion over all the movable and immovable properties of the firm. Petitioners 2 and 3 were actively assisting him, while the other partners were excluded from the management of the firm. The respondent later learned that the petitioners had removed part of the finished goods and raw materials from the firm's godown to unauthorised places, transferred funds to their individual accounts and discounted the firm's bills, bundles in the name of the companies individually owned by them or their relatives. They had converted the finished goods and raw materials of the firm to their own use by obtaining bank drafts in their personal names. To facilitate this wrongful gain, they had made false entries in the books of accounts. The other partners had been cheated by the fraudulent acts of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, had committed offences u/ Ss. 406, 420 and 477-A I.P.C.

(3.) On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate had taken the sworn statement of the complainant respondent, who also produced the other partner Ramamurthy, whose statement was also recorded. That learned Magistrate chose to conduct an enquiry u/S.202 Cr. P.C. and ordered the production of certain documents relating to the accounts of the firm, bank records and finally, considering the materials then available before him, took the complaint on file for the above offences and issued process to the petitioners, who have invoked the inherent powers of this Court to qaush the proceedings.