Smt. Manta Garg vs Syam Narain

N.L. Ganguly, J.—This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1211 of 1981 Shyam Narain v. K.N. Garg and Ors. pending in the court of III Munsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

A complaint u/s 420 IPC was filed and the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue notices to the accused persons by his order dated 13-11-81. The learned Counsel for the applicant placed the entire complaint and submitted that bare perusal of the complaint, shows that the transaction between the parties were purely of civil nature and no case or prosecution u/s 420 IPC is made out. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and have also filed copies of the partnership deed, dissolution deed signed by both the parties of the case.

The learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the allegations of the complaint itself and submitted that even if the allegations are accepted to be correct on its face value, it would indicate that there were latches and non compliance of terms and conditions of the partnership. Such be the case it would be merely a civil liability and it cannot be said that accused persons committed criminal offences u/s 420 IPC

The learned Counsel for applicant placed Pramod Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. 1987 ACC 135. The authority cited show that civil suit in respect of accounting was pending between the parties. The prosecution u/s 409 IPC was launched by the complainant of the said case. The Authority lays down the law that if case is made out under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, there is no bar in proceeding with the same simultaneously with civil suit. There is no controversy or doubt about the settled preposition of law. The case at hand differs on facts. Admittedly, from the documents filed with the petition shows that partnership deed was executed between the parties. The business was conducted by them for some period. Thereafter, the business was not conducted properly and the terms and conditions of the partnership were violated. The result following it was less to the Respondent-complainant. Thereafter, also it appears that parties had executed a deed of dissolution of the partnership firm in which it has been stated that the parties shall not claim any amount from each other for the partnership business in future. The bank account which stood in the joint name of the partners is also closed by the parties. Thus the facts and circumstances clearly shows that the parties had civil transactions and they were conducting the business, for certain reasons the business collapsed and the Respondents suffered a loss. Merely suffering loss would not make out a case for criminal prosecution u/s 420 IPC. For a prosecution u/s 420 IPC the dishonest intention of the accused in the transaction has to be established. It is not apparent from the complaint itself that from the very beginning of the inception of the business transaction between the parties, there was dishonest intention. The parties proceeded to conduct business jointly as a partnership concern. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the complaint, I am satisfied that the case launched against the applicant by the Respondent is a case of civil nature and the prosecution and the proceedings in the criminal complaint case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings in complaint case is liable to be quashed.

The application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The proceedings in the complaint case is quashed.