T MAHALINGAM Vs. P SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.114 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli and quash the same.

(2.) THE background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:THE respondent instituted the case in C.C.No.114 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, as against the petitioner herein, alleging that even though the complainant and the accused happened to be the partners of "Jai Shree Pharmaceuticals" Firm, the accused swindled the entire income of the partnership and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and deprived the complainant of the profits in the business.

(3.) BY way of denying and disputing, challenging and gainsaying, torpedoing and impugning the allegations, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent herein, who happened to be the complainant, would argue that there is no embargo legally to get processed the grievance of the complainant before the criminal court, when one of the partners defrauded the other partner. There is no broad legal proposition that once civil case is barred by limitation, no criminal complaint could be lodged under the Criminal law, in conformity with the criminal law of limitation as envisaged under Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this particular complaint, obviously under section 406 I.P.C is not barred by limitation. So long as a partner acts within the parameters of his powers as a partner, there is no question of criminal action being pressed into service as against him, but on the other hand if he swindles the income and misappropriate the wealth of the partnership to the detriment of the other partner, certainly criminal law can be invoked and criminal complaint would lie.