MANGAT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM BHAGAT CHAMORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders Annexures P. 5 and P. 7 of the trial Magistrate. By the former, he summoned the accused -persons (petitioners in this Court) in consequence, of the complaint under section 477 -A Indian Penal Code, filed against them by Ram Bhagat (respondent in this Court). By the latter order (Annexure P. 7) the trial Magistrate dismissed the objections of the accused -persons to proceed with the case. In the present petition, the prayer is for quashing of the said two orders and the entire proceedings.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Ram Bhagat (respondent) filed the complaint under section 477 -A, Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that he and the three petitioners, namely, Mangat Ram, DauDayal and Mita Nand were partners, with equal shares of firm M/s. Bharat Brick Kiln Company, Sira Ram Bhagat used to reside at Calcutta where he was carrying on business. The business of the said firm was carried on by rest of the three partners. Up to 20th October, 1977, profit of Rs. 87622/ - was earned. Ram Bhagat's share used to be remitted to him by bank drafts In January 1979, he came to Sirsa and asked for the inspection of the account books of the firm but the same were not shown to him on the pretext that the account books were lying with the Sales Tax Department On his return to Calcutta, Ram Bhagat on 13th June, 1979, wrote to Mangat Ram about his share in the profits but did not receive any reply. In these circumstances, Ram Bhagat was constrained to dissolve the firm with effect from 30th June, 1979. After lapse of some time, Ram Bhagat came to Sirsa and met Mangat Ram who said that Ram Bhagat had already been paid Rs. 20,000/ - on 20th January, 1978, and Rs. 30,000/ - on 17th September, 1978, whereas in fact the said amounts were not paid to Ram Bhagat Lastly, it is alleged that payment of the total of the said two amounts, i.e., Rs. 50,000/ - was shown in the account books by falsifying the entries.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Ram Bhagat respondent did not dispute the filing of the above said suit, the passing of the award by the arbitrator unanimously and the award, having been made a rule of the Court. All the same, the contended that at this stage of the Criminal case pending before the trial Magistrate, the probable defence of the petitioners may not be taken into account at all Doubtless, for quashing the criminal proceedings, this Court has normally to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, if any, adduced in support thereof, but in a given case, in order to avoid abuse of the process of the Court the interests of justice require Undisputed and established facts to be given due weight. I, therefore, in the facts of this case, do not find the objection of the Learned Counsel for the respondent tenable.