LAWS(ALL)-1983-8-12

SHASHI KIRAN Vs. AMRIT LAL GUPTA

Decided On August 19, 1983
SHASHI KIRAN Appellant
V/S
AMRIT LAL GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed that the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against her and her husband under sections 418, 420, 423, 465, 468 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, be quashed. The facts giving rise to this application are briefly like this.

(2.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 Amrit Lal Gupta was working as Branch Manager in M/s. Selvel Advertising Private Limited. One Satya Prakash, husband of the applicant, was his friend and at the desire of Satya Prakash it was agreed between the two that they will start their own business. Accordingly they started business under the name and style of Aarti Advertising. It appears that Amrit Lal Gupta deposited Rs. 5000/- whereas Satya Prakash deposited Rs. 100/- initially. More deposits were made by the private parties and similarly withdrawls were also made and the business continued for some time. Amrit Lal Gupta thereafter resigned from the firm Selvel Advertising Private Limited, and started in partnership with Satya Prakash another firm under the name of Ad-Aids. This business also continued for some time. It was alleged in the complaint that thereafter Satya Prakash along with his wife Smt.Shashi. Kiran and two minor children had got new firm registered in the name of Ad-Aids and the money of the old firm was also transferred to the accounts of the new firm. On protest by Amrit Lal Gupta he was told by Satya Prakash that the former was merely his agent on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 500/- with these allegations Amrit Lai Gupta filed the complaint referred to earlier and which is pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

(3.) IN the result, the complaint so far as it makes the applicant also an accused is not maintainable. The proceedings as against her are quashed. The case against the co-accused Satya Prakasln will not be effected by any observations made in this judgment.