LAWS(HPH)-2006-11-9

ASHOKA ALLOYS LTD Vs. ARUN STEELS

Decided On November 15, 2006
ASHOKA ALLOYS LTD. Appellant
V/S
ARUN STEELS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11th July, 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Cri. Pevision No. 4-N/10 of 2002. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while dismissing the aforesaid Criminal revision filed by the petitioner upheld the order dated 12th February, 2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Paonta Sahib. Vide the aforesaid order dated 12th February, 2002 the learned trial Magistrate had allowed an application filed by respondents No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 herein under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a sequel to the passing of the aforesaid order by the learned trial Magistrate the aforesaid four respondeuts stood discharged of the offences for which they had originally been summoned by the learned trial Magistrate.

(2.) A criminal complaint was filed by the petitioners herein under Section 409, 467 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against as many as six accused. M/s Arun Steels through its partner Munni Lal Gupti was shown as accused No. 1 in the said complaint. Munni Lal Gupta, Raj Kumar Gupta, Kishan Gupta, Sanjay Gupta and Viresh Gupta were impleaded as accused No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively in the said complain. All these five persons were impleaded styling them as partners of "M/s. Arun Steels". Since a lot has been said about the styling as well as description of "M/s. Arun Steels" as well as the aforementioned five respondents, it shall be advantageous if the description of the aforesaid six accused as finds a mention in the cause title of the complaint is reproduced herein verbatim. It reads thus :-

(3.) In para 4 of the complaint, the complainant averred that accused No. 1 is a partnership firm and accused No. 2 to 6 are partners of the said partnership firm. Para 4 of the complaint for ready reference reads thus :-