DHARAM PAL Vs. DARSHANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. 184/1 of 2002 (Annexure P-2) and order of summoning dated 2.9.2004 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners have raised a short question to the effect that although the petitioners were not partners in the partnership deed, yet they have been implicated in the present complaint on account of their relationship with accused-Madan Lal. Petitioner No. 1- Dharam Pal is brother of Madan Lal, while petitioner No. 2-Tarun Jindal is son of Madan Lal. Petitioner No. 3-Amrit Lal was Accountant in the partnership concern.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a partnership concern consisting of Madan Lal, Devinder Kumar and Smt.Darshana Devi (complainant/ respondent) was constituted under partnership deed dated 2.4.1990. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn particular attention of the Court towards Partnership Deed (Annexure P-6) and in particular Clauses 8 and 11, to contend that complainant-Darshana Devi, being the lady partner, had no right to take active interest in the business of the firm. Further, the bank account could be operated only by Madan Lal and Devinder Kumar to the exclusion of the lady partner i.e. Complainant-Darshana Devi. Clauses 8 and 11 are reproduced hereinbelow for reference:

(3.) Reference has also been made to the complaint instituted by Darshana Devi and in particular paras 3 to 10, wherein it is pleaded that the complainant had faith in Madan Lal, accused No. 1 in the complaint, and Devinder Kumar, her son. Devinder Kumar and Madan Lal were duly authorised to operate the bank account and draw, endorse or assign cheques, hundies, etc. Devinder Kumar suffered a heart disease in 1997 and was got treated in various hospitals. Due to the illness of Devinder Kumar, the complainant in the capacity of a partner was not in a position to interfere in the business of the firm and the business was being looked after and the account was being operated by Madan Lal, accused No. 1 in the complaint (non-petitioner). It has further been argued that the contents of these paras reflect culpability of accused No. 1 i.e. Madan Lal and none else. It has been pointed out that Madan Lal, admittedly, was operating the bank account as Devinder Kumar was not keeping good health. It was Madan Lal, who signed the cheques as Sole Proprietor of the firm and withdrew the amount so as to embezzle the same. In the face of such documentary evidence being only against accused-Madan Lal, it is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that criminal culpability of the petitioners is not even reflected. Oral averments to the effect that the petitioners were colluding or conspiring with Madan Lal are not sufficient to implicate the petitioners and it would be an abuse of the process of law if the petitioners are harassed on account of such vague allegations.