SURESH KUMAR TEKRIWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.3.2005 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and also the entire criminal proceeding being C.P. Case No. 325 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

(3.) THE case of the complainant as stated in the complaint petition in short is that the complainant was an employed person, the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal, i.e. the petitioner herein, approached him in the year 1990 and proposed to start a joint business and thereby induced the complainant to invest amount in their business. The complainant believing the statement of the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal in good faith agreed to do partnership business with him and invested a huge amount in the business. He entered into the business of partnership and several partnership firms were constituted between the complainant and the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal, including M/s. Savita Iron and Steel Processor and in due course of time, other eight partnership firms were also constituted. The names of which have been mentioned in the complaint petition. It is alleged that according to the terms of partnership agreement, relating to Akashay Steels, as account was opened in Vijaya Bank, Naya More Branch, Bokaro Steel City which was to be operated jointly under the joint signature of both the partners but it is said that the accused No. 2, C. Ravi being the Manager of Vijaya Bank at the relevant time accepted the cheques under the single signature of Suresh Kumar Tekriwal and thereby allowed withdrawal of Rs. 17.20.789.00.00 under different 48 numbers of Cheques on different dates in between 3.8.1999 to 28.2.2000. It is alleged that both the accused persons conniving with each other and in order to misappropriate the amount, with ulterior motive put the complainant in heavy loss. The accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal withdrew such huge amount from the said Vijaya Bank with the connivance of the Branch Manager of the Bank. It is further alleged that some dispute arose in the partnership business relating to M/s. Akshya Steel and M/s. Vishwananth Transport and thereby in pursuance of one of the conditions of the partnership the matter was referred to the Arbitrator who passed an award on 20.11.2000. However, it ended in a compromise between the partners on 1.4.2002. It is further alleged that even after filing claim before the Arbitrator the business of the partnership firm was continuing and income derived from such business were not included in the arbitration award. It is said that accused No. 1 Suresh Kumar Tekriwal, who was dealing with all the transactions, in violation of the partnership agreement and during the pendency and after the arbitration award, received a total sum of Rs. 15.26.00,000.00 . It is said that as per Clause 13 of the Arbitration clause whatever amount were to be received which were not included in the arbitration dispute was to be deposited in the joint account of both the parties for distribution of the amount in equal share. But it is said that the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal received the amount mentioned above on different dates but he did not deposit the same in the joint account and thereby misappropriated the share of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 7,63,00,000.00.00 . The accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal did not inform the complainant before receipt of the same amount. Apart from the aforesaid amount it is said that the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal received a sum of Rs. 26,51,00,000.00.00 on account of liasoning work which were not included in the arbitration dispute. The details of those amounts have been mentioned in the complaint petition. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was entitled to 50% of the amount mentioned in the complaint petition, which was misappropriated by the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal. There is also allegation in the complaint against the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal that he committed forgery in respect of purchase of land at Raipur. In view of the above allegations it was said by he complainant in the complaint petition that the accused No. 1 Suresh Kumar Tekriwal dishonesty deliberately misappropriated the amount and also committed the offence of forgery.