JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---This petition is to quash a process issued on a complaint filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No. 26/S/85. 2. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were partners in a firm known as M/s. N. Rajnikant Co. Respondent No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2. According to the complaint, the petitioner-accused was looking after the business till about 1980 and was maintaining accounts. In 1980, the petitioner started his own firm of Messrs. K. Manusukhlal Co. and was doing the same business. According to the complainant when the accused started his own business, he handed over the partnership business, of Messrs, N. Rajnikant Co. To his wife (Respondent No. 2) and their son Ketan and since then the complainant looked after that affairs of the firm. 3. It appears that one Messrs. Revers Remedies Pvt. Ltd. were one of their customers to whom goods were supplied. On going through the accounts, the complainant found that a sum of Rs. 2, 13,388.32 P was due and payable by the said Messrs.. Revers remedies Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the Complainant's firm's Advocate called upon the said company to pay the said amount with interest thereon. To this letter, the Advocate of the said Company sent a reply stating that nothing was due and payable, according to their books of account. However, they called upon the Complainant's firm to furnish a statement of account, which the complainant's firm did. After going through the statement of account, the said company, by their letter dated 2nd December, 1982 informed the complainant's firm that they had paid a sum of Rs. 19,000/- in 1981 and that the said sum has not been shown in the books of account. Thereafter, by a further letter dated 17th January, 1983, they gave the particulars of payment of the said sum of Rs. 19,000/- and the said letter shows that the amounts were paid by cheques of different amounts between 14-12-1980 to 18-5-1981. It is the case of the complainant that this amount was received by the accused and that this amount was not shown in the books of account. 4. In para 7 of the complaint, the complainant says that the accused started his company, namely, Messrs. Manusukhlal Co. It is the case of the complainant that this amount was received by the accused and that this amount was not shown in the books of account. 4. In para 7 of the complaint, the complainant says that the accused started his company, namely, Messrs. Manusukhlal Co. and according to the accused, accounts were made up upto 31st July, 1981. The Complainant states that in a certain correspondence, the accused claimed that as he had then started the business, he was in dire need of funds and it was arranged that the required funds may be collected from the debtors of the firm and may be utilised by the accounts and that necessary entries be passed in the books of account. Complainant denies this statement and he says that no such that no such entries have been made in the books of account. Complainant also says that there is no such arrangement authorising him to collect the moneys. It is the complainant's further case that these recoveries were not shown in their books of account and also not shown in the Income-Tax Returns. On this basis, the complainant says that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, and the firm was out to a loss of Rs. 90,000/- 5. What is significant is that the partnership form has not been dissolved, at least till the date of filing of the complaint. There is no material to that effect. Therefore, in law, the accused continues to be a partner. Therefore, if a partners, he had received any amount, I cannot understand how the receipt of such amounts becomes an offence under any provision of law. The petitioner has relied on an unreported judgment given by Rele, J., on July 30, 1982 in the case of (Bhogilal Vallabhdas Ghia v. Chandrakant P. Mirani)1, in Criminal Application No. 580 of 1982, which apply clearly lays down that even if a partner has withdrawn an amount from the account of the firm, it cannot be said that the partner has committed an offence under section 406, I.P.C. Even. otherwise, in the present case, there is no material whatsoever to show that the accused had received this amount. The complainant has annexed the said letter dated 17th January, 1983 sent by M/s. Revers Remedies Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant's firm. otherwise, in the present case, there is no material whatsoever to show that the accused had received this amount. The complainant has annexed the said letter dated 17th January, 1983 sent by M/s. Revers Remedies Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant's firm. But the said letter only says that a sum of Rs. 90,000/-, as per the details of payments mentioned in the said letter, had been paid to the complainant's firm by cheques and the last of such payments appears to have been made on 18th May, 1981. There is no avernment in the complaint to say that these cheques were, in fact, received by the accused. Similarly, there is no statement in the said letter dated 17th January, 1983 to say that it was the accused who had collected the cheques from Messrs. Revers Remedies Pvt. Ltd. If the cheques had been isued in the name of the firm, I presume the cheques must have necessarily gone into the account of the firm. If the cheques had gone into the account of the firm, assuming that the amounts have not been shown in the books of the firm, I cannot understand how such a fact can be considered as an offence under section 406, I.P.C. as against the partner of the firm. 6. Mr. Shirish Gupte vehemently argued and pointed out that the accused has pleaded an arrangement whereby he has claimed right to recorder the outstandings from the debtors of the firm and that, therefore, it is on that basis he has collected the amount. I called upon Mr. Shirish Gupte to produce the said letter of arrangement, which he has not been able to do so far. Assuming that this was a plea taken up by the accused in the correspondence, still it is the plea of a certain arrangement, whereby as a partner, he (the Accused) was claiming to recover certain dues and certain adjustments towards the amount due to him on taking accounts. It is true that the complainant/has denied this arrangement. But that is only a matter of accounts between the parties. It is true that the complainant/has denied this arrangement. But that is only a matter of accounts between the parties. If the complainant or for that matter his wife, as a partner, says that certain amounts are due from the accused, either on taking accounts or otherwise with regard to the said partnership business, the proper remedy in such cases is to proceed in a Civil Court and file a regular suit for dissolution of firm and taking accounts. Certainly, a coercive process under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no material whatsoever for issue of such a process. 7. In the result, I pass the following order : The complainant, being Case No. 26/S/1984 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay is quashed. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute. -----