Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 93 (PAT)

Manju Khaitan v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-19

S.N.MISHRA

body2000
Judgment Chy.S.N.Mishra, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner, who is one of the accused, has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 2.12.1995 of an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 341, 342, 406, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The opposite party no. 2, Shankar Lal Khaitan had filed a complaint petition alleging inter-alia that the accused persons including the petitioner has manufactured several forged papers in connivance with each other in order to cheat the complainant. It is further alleged that the accused person prepared forged papers showing the transfer of all the assets of the firm, namely, M/s Universal Transport to the company of M/s. Khaitan Enterprises (Auto) Pvt. Limited, herein after referred to Company. The accused persons have also forged the signature of the complainant and thereby trucks and assets of M/s. Universal Transport transferred to the Company and also disposed of several trucks of the complainant without his acknowledge. It is further alleged that the accused persons, in conspiracy to each other, forged the signature of the complainant in order to deprive the complainant of the shares and properties. It is further alleged that the accused persons have prepared the fake resignation letter with forged signature of the complainant and on the basis thereof they removed the complainant from the Directorship of the Company. It is further alleged that on 5.11.1995 at about 9.00 P.M. the complainant was returning to his home and when reached near the crossing of Boring Road alongwith one Sunil Kumar Singh the car of the accused no. 1 was standing near the Boring Road Crossing. The accused no. 1 was sitting in the Car alongwith other armed musclemen. It is alleged that when the complainants scooter reached near the car of accused no. 1, the criminals stopped the scooter and caught the complainant forcibly showing the country made pistol. The complainant was assaulted with fists and blows. The accused no. 1 ordered to take the complainant into his car. The complainant was taken into the car forcibly by the miscreants when the complainant was threatened by accused who was armed with revolver. 1, the criminals stopped the scooter and caught the complainant forcibly showing the country made pistol. The complainant was assaulted with fists and blows. The accused no. 1 ordered to take the complainant into his car. The complainant was taken into the car forcibly by the miscreants when the complainant was threatened by accused who was armed with revolver. The sum and substance of the allegation is that by forging certain documents and also having the forged signature of the complainant, the accused persons have misappropriated the hard earned money to the tune of Rs. 40-50 lacs in a well calculated manner on the basis of the forged documents. The learned Magistrate after going through the complaint petition, the statements made at solemn affirmation including the materials on record took cognizance of the alleged offence against the accused persons including the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance on the ground, firstly that the alleged occurrence is in two parts. The first part of the occurrence took place in 1985 and the second part of the occurrence is in 1995. So far the second part of the occurrence is concerned, it is submitted that there is absolutely no allegations against the petitioner. As regards the first part of the allegation is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant sat over the matter for five years and did not take any steps either by filing complaint petition and/or the first information report and as such the petitioner can not be prosecuted at this belated stage. 4. It is then submitted that even if the allegation is accepted as it is, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner and at best the dispute is of civil nature particularly in view of the fact that both the petitioner as well as the complainant are own brothers. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Transocean Shipping Agency (P) Limited vs. Black Sea Shipping and ors. reported in 1998 S.C. page 709 and also the decision reported in 1991 S.C. page 1531 (Bal Kishan Das vs. P.C. Nayar). 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Transocean Shipping Agency (P) Limited vs. Black Sea Shipping and ors. reported in 1998 S.C. page 709 and also the decision reported in 1991 S.C. page 1531 (Bal Kishan Das vs. P.C. Nayar). 5. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him for the simple reason that the allegations of cheating by various forged documents has been made against the accused persons and thereby deprived the complainant of his hard earned money to the tune of Rs. 40-50 lacs. It is true that both the complainant as well as accused are the family members out of whom accused no. 1 is own brother of the complainant whereas the petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the accused no. 1. It is true that the dispute arises out of the partnership business but the manner in which the accused persons have acted resulting in huge monetary loss to the complainant and, as such, it can not be said to be a civil dispute. Even assuming the alleged dispute is of civil nature, yet the allegations made against the accused persons did constitute a criminal offence which can be tried in accordance with law. The alleged forged documents have been used for the benefit of the accused persons to the exclusion of the complainant who is admittedly one of the partners of the business in question. So far the delay in lodging the complaint petition is concerned, it has been explained in the complaint petition itself, inasmuch as, it has been stated that the accused persons are themselves responsible for the delay in lodging the complaint. The 2nd part of the allegation is in continuation of the first part which resulted in filing of the instant case against the accused persons. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record including order taking cognizance, I am not inclined to interfere with the order taking cognizance at this stage. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Before I part with the case I may, however, observe that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties during trial.