PREM PHARMACEUTICAL Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.313/15 on 17/07/15, whereby the order dismissing the private complaint filed by the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore has been affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that applicant is a partnership firm. There are 10 partners in the firm namely Narendra Kumar Dani, Ravindra Kumar Gupta, Manohar Gupta, Satish Gupta, Rajesh Agrawal, Girdharilal Gupta, Jagdish Mangal, Nitesh Dani, Amit Gupta and Smt. Aruna Bai. Partners of the firm executed a general power of attorney on 09/07/02 appointing partner of firm namely Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Narendra Kumar Dani for the purpose of business work of the firm. It is alleged that the aforesaid general power of attorney has been cancelled vide notice dated 24/12/10. It is alleged that Ravindra Kumar Gupta, partner of the firm was authorized as a power of attorney for the purpose of business work of the firm, but Ravindr Kumar Gupta in connivance with Manoharlal, Satish Gupta, Amit Gupta and Smt. Aruna Gupta has sold the machinery of the firm without consent and permission of the partners of the firm in favour of M/s Chika Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and the consideration has been misappropriated. Similarly, the structure of industrial house has been leased to Vishal S/o Shantilal and consideration has been misappropriated. It is further alleged that on 15/11/10, it was agreed between the partners of the firm and creditors that Gupta family, Dani Family, Agrawal family and Jagdish Mangal, partners would be liable to pay to the creditors 52.5%, 27.5%, 10% & 5%. The amount due to payment not to have been paid by the sale of the property of the firm. Partners of the firm, alone, was not having any right to sale the property of the firm. Thus, the respondents have committed the offence under Sections 406, 463 & 120-B of the IPC. Report was lodged by the firm, but no action has been taken, hence, private complaint has been filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, who has recorded the statements under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, criminal revision No.313/15 was preferred which has also been dismissed, against which, this petition has been preferred.

(3.) It is submitted that learned trial Court has erred in holding that the dispute is of civil nature. Learned trial Court has not properly considered the lease deed and sale deed executed by the respondent. Learned trial Court below further erred in placing reliance on the enquiry report submitted by the Police Station Bhanwar Kua. Learned trial Court below is lost sight of the fact that the amount of consideration which has been received but has not been submitted in the account of the Firm. Thus, the amount has been misappropriated by the respondents . Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set-aside and trial Court be directed to take cognizance of the offence.