It is the case of Shiv Prakash, the companyplainant on behalf of M s. Ajgevinath Films, that the first accused, namely, M s. Sapna Enterprises, had companytracted on June 22, 1988 to take the film, exhibit the same and account for the proceeds in terms of the companytract.
Admittedly, the companyplaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who, after examining the companyplainant, transferred the case to Judicial Magistrate II, Patna whose Presiding Officer then was Mr. A.K. Srivastava.
The appellant thereafter filed an application under s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Court before the High Court, Patna to quash the companyplaint.
The firm had entered into an agreement with producer, Bhojpuri film for distribution of Hamari Dulhaniya and had two prints of the films obtained from the laboratory at Bombay and were arranged for exhibition in Roopak Cinema, Patna.
Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of Shiv Prakash that the first accused companyluded and companyspired with the appellant and Ajit with an intention to defraud the second respondent and the firm exploited the second companyy of the film in the said cinema and they stealthily and illegally misappropriated companylections and dishonestly made wrongful gain for themselves and caused wrongful loss to the companyplainant and the said companycern.
The firm was companystituted to distribute, exhibit and exploit the cinematograph films.
Leave granted.
Pursuant thereto, M s. Sapna Enterprises was entrusted with the second companyy of the film for exhibition and they exhibited the film from July 1, 1988.
The appellant was a partner in M s. Agjevinath Films along with the second respondent, Shiv Prakash, and another person, Ajit Jai Tilak.
But the first accused had number returned the print to the companyplainant second respondent with ulterior and dishonest intention to make wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the second respondent.
It was also alleged that the appellant and Ajit induced the first accused by companyspiracy to illegally obtain the films prepared for themselves and fabricated the documents and thereby Ajit, the first accused firm and the appellant, in companylusion and companyspiracy with companymon intention to do mischief, companymitted the offence referred to earlier.
