I.S. VERMA Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner I.S. Verman has sought the quashing of complaint dated July 30 1983 of the respondent Harbans Singh Kalra (Annexure P.I) and the order dated March 1, 1984 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, (Annexure P.5) by which, in pursuance of the said complaint, the petitioner and his co-accused were summoned.

(2.) THE relevant facts of this case are that the respondent Harbhajan Singh Kalra and the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Amir Chand, Mehar Singh, Uma Bhutani and Asha Nand were partners in a Firm. A dispute arose between the partners and dissolution deed was executed on October 31, 1982, dissolving the Firm (Annexure P.2). According to the petitioner a memorandum of understanding was also executed by the partners on November 1, 1982 (Annexure P.3) by which he was appointed as an arbitrator to decide the dispute. In pursuance of this memorandum the petitioner issued a notice to the partners of the Firm, including the respondent, on March 5, 1983 to appear before him for arbitration. The respondent, claiming the memorandum (Annexure P.3) to be a forged document, filed a civil suit on June 23, 1983 seeing a declaration that this document, being forged and fabricated, can not be acted upon. It was further prayed that the petitioner be permanently restrained from proceeding with the arbitration. Shortly thereafter the respondent filed the impugned complaint on July 30, 1983 against the petitioner and the co-accused to be prosecuted undersections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate I Class, Faridabad taking cognizance of the complaint, passed the impugned order of summoning of the petitioner and his co-accused on March 1, 1984 (Annexure P.5).

(3.) IT is contended by the learned petitioner's counsel that under section 195(1) (b)(ii) of the Code the complaint regarding the document (Annexure P.3) could be filed only by the Court in which the above mentioned civil suit is pending and that the respondent had no locustandi to file the complaint.