ASHOK KUMAR Vs. JASWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Kumar and others by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of complaint dated 12-3-91 (Annexure P1) and the order dated June 14, 1991 (Annexure P2) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) RESPONDENT Jaswant Rai moved a complaint for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A read with Section 120-B IPC. According to the averments Made in the complaint, Jaswant Rai, complainant, Ashok Kumar, and Surinder Kumar accused were real brothers and partners in four different firms under the name and style of Vijay Luxmi Wire Company; Jati Ram Narain Dass; Narain Electricals (India) and Udho Udyog. The Firm Udho Udyog consisted of Shiksha Rani, Usha Rani, Smt. Sham Kaur and the complainant as partners. The complaint had been ousted from the business and management of all the concerns regarding which he had initiated arbitration proceedings in the Court of Sh. G. K. Rai, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana. The accused were in possession and control of the entire account books and assets of the partnership property. On May 17, 1990, the complainant sent a communication requesting accused No I to supply him the returns of wealth-tax and income-tax for the period March 31, 1985 to March 31, 1990. He also sought information about his saving accounts and details of the rents etc. This letter was sent under postal certificate, but the accused did not respond. He sent another letter on March 19, 1991 making a request to them for supplying him the copies of balance sheets for the period from Match 31, 1985 to March 31, 1990, pass books, cheque books, etc. so as to enable him to file income-tax and wealth-tax returns. This letter was also sent under postal certificate, but the accused did not supply him the documents. The complainant then approached the income-tax authorities for seeking advice in the matter and he was accompanied by Ram Kumar Bedi Accountant. There he learnt that accused Nos. I to 4 in connivance with accused No 5 have forged the signatures of the complainant and filed a false return under his forged signatures. The complainant had never signed or filed any return before the income-tax authorities. The accused have impersonated the complainant and prepared false accounts and used them as genuine and have also caused a wrongful loss to him.

(3.) THE matter referred to arbitration relates, to the dispute about the partnership business and has no concern with the matter of filing of the return, which is alleged to have been filed under the forged signatures of the complainant. The arbitration proceedings have in fact no bearing on the criminal proceedings relating to the forgeries complained of.