KIRTI R. TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.231/2009, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC were framed against the applicant.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant Sumit Kumar Kabra has sent a complaint to the S.P., Chhindwara on 17.5.2006 that the applicant and the complainant entered into a partnership agreement dated 14.1.1996 and it was agreed that from 1997, the income obtained from Anupam Drilling Company shall be divided between the applicant and the complainant. An account of firm was also opened in Allahabad Bank, Chhindwara in the year 1996. Wife of the complainant suffered illness and therefore, the complainant could not see the transactions of the company. In the year 1998, his wife died. Thereafter, the complainant found that no transaction took place in the partnership firm and therefore, no income was shown in the account of the firm kept in Allahabad Bank but, in January, 2006, the complainant was informed that the applicant was continuing his business in the name of Anupam Drilling Company and he converted that partnership firm into a proprietary concern and he is getting the profit in his personal accounts and he was dealing the work of Anupam Drilling Company in his own name. The complaint was referred to the concerned Police Station and SDOP was also directed for enquiry. Thereafter, a case was registered. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the aforesaid charges thereafter.

(3.) AT the stage of framing of the charges, appreciation of evidence cannot be done but, it is to be seen that by the evidence collected by the prosecution, whether any conviction can be drawn against the accused or not and if the answer is affirmative then, charges of such offences shall be framed against the accused. In this connection, if the evidence collected by the prosecution is perused then, it would be apparent that the complainant could not show any document, which was forged by the applicant. A specific allegation of forgery is required. It appears that the complainant alleged the forgery of documents, in which the Anupam Drilling Company was shown to be a proprietary concern. If the FIR and agreement of partnership is perused then, it was clearly mentioned in the agreement that it shall commence from the year 1997 and if the agreement is silent on any point then, the provisions of Indian Partnership Act shall be applicable. The agreement was executed in the year 1996 and it was commenced in the year 1997. It is apparent that no registration of partnership firm was done, as required by the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and therefore, the partnership did not commence. Secondly, the partnership was to be commenced in the year 1997, whereas, the complainant could not participate in the partnership since the year 1996 because of ailment of his wife. Looking to the FIR lodged by the complainant, he did not take any interest in the activities of the partnership firm thereafter. After the death of his wife, in the year 1998, he did not take any interest in the activities of the alleged partnership firm. Under such circumstances, the complainant could not establish prima facie that the sole proprietary concerned which was being run by the applicant in the name of Anupam Drilling Company was converted into a partnership firm and therefore, if the applicant is continuing his business in the name of Anupam Drilling Company as a sole proprietary concern then, prima facie he has not done any forgery and therefore, no offence punishable under sections 467 and 468 of IPC is constituted against the applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing the charges of offence punishable under sections 467 and 468 of IPC.