VIKRAM CAPOOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (For short ''Cr.P.C.') the petitioner Vikram Capoor has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 209 of 2013, Ani Capoor Vs. Vikram Capoor pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow and also the order impugned dated 25th September, 2013, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under sections 355, 409 504 and 506 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts germane to the present case are that petitioner is a nephew of opposite party no. 2 Ani Capoor. A business in the name of M/s Capoor Hotel and Restaurant was running in the partner-ship of petitioner and opposite party no. 2. Both were partners of equal share i.e. 50% each. The partnership deed was executed in between them. During continuance of the partnership some dispute arose and opposite party no. 2 made applications to the Station Officer of police station Hazratganj, District Lucknow on 7.5.2007 and on 8.5.2007 and also to S.S.P. Lucknow on 9.5.2007 by sending the same by registered post alleging therein that petitioner with intention to cause pecuniary loss to the opposite party no. 2 and with mala fide intention prepared a forged acknowledgement dated 22.3.2007 along with receipts thereof by making forged signature of opposite party no. 2, by which a letter (notice of proceedings) dated 21.3.2007 was said to be served upon opposite party no. 2. This forged acknowledgement was used in the arbitration proceedings pending in the court of District Judge, Lucknow by the petitioner with intention to deprive her from legal rights to contest. This all has been done by the petitioner to dislodge her from the partnership property with connivance of courier company.

(3.) Opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with similar allegation on 11.5.2007 (Annexure no. 3 to this petition). which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 447 of 2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the same by means of order dated 27.5.2007 on the ground that application under section 340 Cr.P.C. was given before District Judge where forgery was committed. In this regard what proceeding has been done by the District Judge, has not been mentioned by the opposite party no. 2 nor any order of the District Judge has been filed by her.