PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Kidar Nath & sons is a partnership concern functioning in Saddar Bazar, Ambala -Cantt., from May 22, 1979 in terms of partnership deed Annexure P. 1. Along with Kishan Sarup, Joginder Singh, Ramesh Chand, Suresh Chand, Raj Kumar and Babu Lal, petitioner Prem Chand and respondent No. 2 Mahesh Chand are all its partners. In respect of assessment year 1970-71, the firm was imposed a penalty of Rs. 57,005.00 paise by the Income Tax Department which was duly deposited. Appellate Commissioner, Income-Tax waived the penalty and the petitioner obtained from the Income Tax Department a refund voucher and withdrew the refunded amount from the Bank on September 10,1986.

(2.) AFTER deducting expenses etc. etc. and paying Rs. 15,000/- as their share of the refunded amount to Babu Lal, Joginder Singh and Kishan Sarup, the petitioner claims to have tried to give their share of it to the remaining four petitioners besides himself named Mahesh Chand respondent No. 2, Ramesh Chand, Suresh Chand and Raj Kumar who did not accept it. Instead respondent No.2 Mahesh Chand lodged First Information Report Annexure P. 3 No. 156 against the petitioner in Police Station Saddar, Ambala Cantt on May 29, 1987 under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) REGARDING the grounds urged for quashing the complaint, there is no factual dispute. Assertion made by the learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner having obtained the refund voucher and deposited it in his individual account of M/s Prem Chard and others, contradistinguished from the account of firm, there was clear dishonest intention imputable to the petitioners for the commission of criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount of refund and, therefore, accepting the allegations in the First Information Report perse there was absolutely no ground for quashing it/observations made in Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2229, The Kerala State Electricity Board v. Harisubramainian and others, AIR 1979 Supreme. Court 1488, Karnail Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 199, Manjit Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 282 and Harbinder Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 466 have been pressed into service to assert that inherent powers of the High Court cannot be exercised to quash investigation into a cognizable offence.