Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (5) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said respondent, respondent No. 1/complainant now cannot be permitted to continue prosecuting the complaint against the petitioner alone, more so when there was no specific allegation levelled in the complaint against her. complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant against the petitioner is not maintainable. petition is allowed - CRL. REV.P. NO. 546 OF 2009 AND CRL. M. A. NO. 11687 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2011 - HIMA KOHLI, J. Avnish Allawat and Nitesh Kumar Singh for the Petitioner. Prashant Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Hima Kohli, J. - The present petition is filed by the petitioner under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Cr.Pc praying inter alia for quashing of the complaint fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orporation of M/s Sunlit Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. is enclosed as Annexure P-4. The said company was incorporated under the Companies Act on 6-4-1999. The Articles of Association and the Memorandum of Association are also placed on record. All these documents are stated to have been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reliance placed by the complainant on the partnership deed of M/s Sunlit Securities is misconceived. She further states that a perusal of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant also does not reveal the consideration, which formed the basis of issuance of the cheque to the complainant and no role whatsoever has been attributed to the petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d all his grievances with respondent No. 3 and that the case against him may be dropped. She submits that the amount received in settlement was not mentioned by the complainant at any stage of the proceedings. Nor were the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at with respondent No. 3 indicated and further, the complainant also did not take any steps against respondent No. 4, Mrs. Sushma Gupta, who had been made a co-accused by the complainant in the pending proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Pertinently, respondent No. 4 is the wife of respondent No. 3. 5. Counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant states that the transaction, for which the cheque had been issued to the complainant, was with M/s Sunlit Secur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the effect that the accused persons had issued a cheque of Rs. 8 lacs against the liabilities towards the complainant company. Further, the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant shows that in para 3 thereof, accused No. 1 has been described as a company and not as a partnership firm, as contended by the counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant, and further, respondent Nos. 3 4 and the petitioner have been described as partners of accused No. 1/company. The list of witnesses enclosed with the complaint shows that the complainant has cited the officer of the Pathankot Hindu Co-operative Urban Bank Limited as witness No. 2 and has called upon him to produce the statement of account of "M/s Sunlit Financial Services C/o M/s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to proceed against respondent No. 4, cannot prosecute the present complaint against the petitioner alone, without even revealing the exact amount purportedly received by the complainant in settlement with the remaining co-accused. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant has also not been able to indicate from the record that any specific amount was mentioned as having been received from respondent No. 3 (Accused No. 2) for dropping him from the case. Having regard to the fact that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent No. 3 (Accused No. 2), who respondent No. 1/complainant has decided not to prosecute, on account of his having received some undisclosed amount from the said respondent, respondent No. 1/complainant now .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates