PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED as prayed for. Complainant Pawan Kumar has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) assailing order dated 13.2.2010 Annexure P/21 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal and judgment dated 31.5.2011, Annexure P/22 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal as revisional court. Case of the petitioner is that he was partner in two firms with accused nos. 1 to 4 but when the petitioner went for treatment of eyes of his son, accused nos. 1 to 4 in connivance with accused no. 5-Accountant (respondents no. 2 to 6) misappropriated all the assets of both the firms.

(2.) COMPLAINT instituted by the petitioner under sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC on the aforesaid averments was sent by Illaqa Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation and consequently, FIR No. 181 dated 22.8.2005, under sections 406, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Siwan, Kaithal, Annexure P/2 was registered. The police after investigation presented the cancellation report Annexure P/3. Petitioner filed protest petition against the said cancellation report and prayed for summoning of respondents no. 2 to 6 as accused. The said protest petition has been dismissed and cancellation report submitted by the police has been accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 13.2.2010, Annexure P/21 affirmed in revision petition by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 31.5.2011 Annexure P/22. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) IT is to be noticed that in fact from the averments made in the complaint/FIR, it is manifest that the petitioner-complainant has given colour of criminal case to civil dispute regarding assets and liabilities of the two partnership firms in question. This tendency of initiating criminal proceedings to settle civil rights has to be disapproved.