LexSUNEET GUPTA versus ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C R 1162 SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2008) APRIL 28, 2008 (C.K. THAKKER AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) Companies Act, 1956/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 482: C Quashing of FIR - Differences amongst partners - One partner leaving partnership firm joining another firm - Disputes regarding payment from third party, the principal - Fl.R. - Initiation of criminal case against outgoing partners and other, respondents - Filing of petition uls.482 of the Code for D quashing of FI. R. - Dispute - Nature of- Civil/Criminal - Held: High Court rightly considered the facts in their proper perspective quashing criminal proceedings against respondents - Disputes related to settlement of account between the principal and Agents/Firms - One of the agents, E the first firm, informed the principal about closing of its business and continuing the business in the name of another firm, (the second firm) and for making the payment to the said firm - Though the complainant a/so informed the principal about existence of disputes between partners of the first firm and for not making payment to the second firm till disputes finally F resolved- But that does not give rise to criminal liability entitling the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings against second firm and others - Particularly, after substitution of the second firm in place of the first in the company record of the principal - Under the circumstances, High Court has neither G committed any error of law nor of jurisdiction which deserves interference by Supreme Court in exercise of power u!Artic!e 136 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Scope of - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 406 rlw S 1208 and S.468. H 1162 SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA 1163 & ORS. Appellant entered into partnership with one 'S' of a A registered Partnership Firm, namely, M/s K.M. Agencies. The Firm was the stockist and distributor of consumer goods of Mis Johnson & Johnson, a Limited Multinational Company, the principal. Later, differences arose between the partners when the other partner 'S' joined another B partnership firm, namely, M/s. Mang la Agencies. Appellant t alleged that the outgoing partner 'S' falsely, dishonestly and with a view to cheat and defraud him, mis-represented before Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd., the principal company, that the name of partnership firm of M/s K.M. c Agencies was changed to M/s Mangla Agencies. The principal was aware of the fact that M/s K.M. Agencies and M/s Mangla Agencies were different firms and M/s K.M. Agencies, a partnership firm was never dissolved. However, the principal made the payment to Mis Mangla 0 Agencies with a view to deprive Mis K.M. Agencies and particularly the appellant. The appellant, in the circumstances, was constrained to issue legal notice to respondents alleging that the amount in question has been misappropriated by partners of M/s Mangla Agencies in collusion with officials of the principal by playing fraud E upon him. The appellant also filed a complaint before the Director General of Police requesting him to enquire into the matter, but nothing further was done in the matter. The appellant then lodged the First Information Report against all the accused for committing the offences punishable F -t· under Sections 468, 406 read with 1208 IPC at a Police Station. Respondents filed bail application. During pendency of the bail applications before the High Court, the prosecution made a statement that the presence of three accused partners of M/s. Mangla Agencies was not G required in the case and consequently their bail applications became infructuous. Meanwhile, the respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing FIR registered against them. The petitions were allowed H 1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 6 S.C.R. A by the High Court vide the impugned order. Hence, the present appeals. Appellant contended that the High Court was wholly in error in quashing the FIR; that from the allegations levelled in the FIR prima facie case for offences punishable 8 under Sections 468, 406 read with 1208, IPC had been made out; that two partnership firms of M/s K.M. Agencies and M/s Mangla Agencies were distinct, different and independent of each other. So far as M/s K.M. Agencies is concerned, there were only two
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.