SATISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved against the order dated Sept. 1, 1992 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kota, in Criminal Case No. 416/92, whereby he took cognizance against him under Sections 403 and 420, IPC.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel that averments made in the complaint be taken on their face value, but no criminal case is made out under section 403 or 420, IPC. I have gone through the complainant. The facts of the case, as narrated in the complainant, are that the complainant and his father knew the accused Purushottam and Satish Chandra and on their asking, he became a partner in two commercial concerns, mentioned in the complaint. All the averments relate to the fact that the complainant was not given any amount of the share in the profit, nor he was made known about the accounts of the firm. It was alleged by the complainant that he had invested large amount in the business and there was profit also to the tune of Rs. 5,47,295.00 and he was entitled to get half share of the profit amounting to Rs. 2,17,147.50.

(3.) After going through the averments made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under section 200, Crimial P.C., I am convinced that the uncontroverted allegations made by the complainant do not make out a prima facie case. The dispute between the parties appears to be a dispute in relation to partnership. According to the complainant, he had invested huge amount and there was a large profit, but he has been deprived of the same. In my view, it is a civil wrong and the remedy for the complainant lies in a Civil Court. I am also convinced that continuation of criminal prosecution of the petitioner in a case like the present one would amount an abuse of process of the Court and the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.