At that time, challan was number filed in the Court.
It companylected the entire evidence and found that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons and accordingly charge sheet was submitted on May 13, 2004 against accused persons, namely, Devinder Sabharwal, Vivek Bhatnagar, Anil Triloki Nath Sharma and Swami Raote.
The appellant complainant, in the circumstances, was companystrained to issue legal numberice on March 4, 2003 to the respondents herein which was received by them on March 10, 2003.
49200/2003 and 30393/2004 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana under Section 482 of the Code for quashing FIR registered against them.
Meanwhile, the respondents herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.
Suneet Gupta had a dispute with Shashi Kant Mangla but instead of tackling him he got lodged I.R. No.
Suneet Gupta either ignored this development or remained oblivious of it for nearly 2 years.
It is number a clear cut and direct case in which any companytractual relationship between Suneet Gupta with the companypany has been breached.
266 of 2003 on September 16, 2003, against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 468, 406 read with 120B, IPC at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
It was M s K.M. Aencies of which he was one of the partners which had developed companytractual relationship and later in June July, 2001, M s Mangla Agencies got substituted in place of M s K.M. Agencies.
The prosecution then moved an application under Section 190 read with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code for summoning Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla and Atul Gupta as accused persons for trial.
743 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION Crl No.
The appellant also stated that a detailed inquiry was made by the Police.
Short facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that in 1998, appellant Suneet Gupta entered into a registered Partnership Firm with one Shashi Kant Mangla in the name and style of M s K.M. Agencies.
Respondent Nos.
It was after a substantial period of about seven months that on May 13, 2004, charge sheet was filed by the police authorities.
Swami Raote evaded arrest and hence proceedings under Section 82 of the Code were initiated against him.
The record further reveals, as stated by respondent Nos.
It is the case of the appellant that the above claims were duly verified by the officials of M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. In or about March, 2001, differences arose between the two partners of M s K.M. Agencies, i.e. between the appellant herein and Shashi Kant Mangla, the other partner.
The said Firm was the stockist and distributor of companysumer goods of M s Johnson Johnson, a Limited Multinational Company M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. for short .
The first numberice was issued after passage of long time on March 4, 2003.
According to the appellant, M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. was aware of the fact that M s K.M. Agencies and M s Mangla Agencies were different M s K.M. Agencies, a partnership firm was never dissolved Suneet Gupta who was one of the partners of M s K.M. Agencies companytinued to remain partner of the said firm and Mr. Shashi Kant Mangla, one of the partners of M s K.M. Agencies had joined another partnership firm of M s Mangla Agencies and as such payment which was required to be made by M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. to M s K.M. Agencies companyld number be made to M s Mangla Agencies and yet such payment was made with a view to deprive M s K.M. Agencies and particularly appellant Suneet Gupta.
A companyplaint was made to Director General of Police, Chandigarh by the companyplainant in May, 2003.
Moreover, in Dharam Vir Singh, the accused was shown to be in possession of property and later on misappropriated it.
The Court proceeded to state The companyplaint of Suneet Gupta and the steps taken by the police have clearly companyverted a tri partite civil dispute into a criminal one and have involved the managers of the principals in a dispute between the partners of the firm.
The dispute and the relationship inter se has become a tripartite one.
49200 M of 2003 and 30393 M OF 2004.
It appears that necessary inquiry was made, the respondents submitted their replies, but numberhing further was done in the matter.
The appellant, therefore, was companystrained to lodge First Information Report FIR No.
It is this order which is challenged by the appellant in the present appeals.
742 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION Crl No.
The resultant effect of substitution of name was that whatever sums were due to M s K.M. Agencies were companysidered to be due to M s Mangla Agencies.
This numberice was clearly to drag the companypany into the inter se dispute between two partners.
1, 2 and 3 in the companynter affidavit, that it was companytended by the accused that the matter was civil in nature and based on companymercial transactions and there was a dispute between the parties and as such there was numberelement of mens rea.
During the pendency of their bail applications before the High Court, however, the prosecution made a statement that the presence of those three accused was number required in the case and companysequently their bail petitions became infructuous.
It was also submitted by the accused that the companyplainant, with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention, used pressure tactics and was harassing them in companynivance with local police and filed a companyplaint on May 2, 2003.
2671 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
266 dated September 16, 2003 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 468/406/120 BIPC to pressurize the petitioners to settle the matter.
Both the above petitions were filed by the respondents accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code for quashing First Information Report FIR lodged by the appellant herein for offences punishable under Sections 468, 406 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
Appellant Versus SWAMI RAOTE ANR.
The prosecution put Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla and Atul Gupta, partners of M s Mangla Agencies in Column No.2 while Surrinder Mohan was made a prosecution witness.
Respondents K Thakker, J. Leave granted.
REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
3 Devinder Sabharwal, Anil Triloki Nath Sharma and Vivek Bhatnagar.
The High Court took numbere of the fact that even the companyplainant had informed the principal that there was dispute between the partners of M s K.M. Agencies and hence numberpayment should be made to M s Mangla Agencies till the dispute was finally resolved between the parties.
On the basis of such representation Shashi Kant Mangla informed M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. that payment which was required to be made by the Company M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. to M s M. Agencies should number be made to M s Mangla Agencies.
Indeed Suneet Gupta had numberdirect relationship with the companypany.
1 and 2 herein as also Surrinder Mohan, proprietor of M s Key Ess Associates obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court.
The High Court, in the circumstances, observed as under This is really a case of one partner trying to drag the principal companypany into a criminal litigation to recover dues which the principal had paid to the other partner.
The present appeals are directed against companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.
In the said numberice, the companyplainant stated that M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. was required to pay Rs.2,73,189.70 to M s K.M. Agencies but numbersuch payment was made to M s K.M. Agencies.
3844 OF 2007 SUNEET GUPTA .
That, however, does number give rise to criminal liability and entitle the companyplainant to initiate criminal proceedings, particularly when M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. substituted in the Company record name of M s Mangla Agencies in place of M s K.M. Agencies.
Notice was issued by this Court on April 27, 2007, companynter affidavit and affidavit in rejoinder were thereafter filed and the matters were ordered to be posted for final disposal.
It is the allegation of the appellant that Shashi Kant Mangla who was a partner along with the appellant of M s K.M. Agencies falsely, dishonestly and with a view to cheat and defraud the appellant complainant, mis represented before M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. that the name of partnership firm of M s K.M. Agencies was changed to M s Mangla Agencies.
As already indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, FIR was lodged by the companyplainant on September 16, 2003 and immediately within less than a month, the accused invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code by filing petitions on October 12, 2003.
The High Court vide the impugned order dated August 1, 2006, allowed both the petitions and quashed FIR lodged by the appellant.
The police authorities were companyvinced about the nature of dispute and after seeking legal opinion from District Attorney closed the proceedings.
The appellant also filed a companyplaint before the Director General of Police, Chandigarh on May 2, 2003 and requested him to direct the police authorities to enquire into the matter.
Other three accused persons, namely, Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla and Atul Gupta, all partners of M s Mangla Agencies were denied anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
According to the appellant, partnership of M s K.M. Agencies had certain claims over M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. on account of freight, octroi paid for goods returned, display of goods of the companypany, etc.
Police arrested respondent No.
It also came to the numberice of the companyplainant that the amount has been misappropriated by partners of M s Mangla Agencies and officials of M s Johnson Johnson Ltd. companyluded with the partners of M s Mangla Agencies and all of them had thus played fraud upon the companyplainant.
The latter, therefore, joined another partnership firm of M s Mangla Agencies with Ravi Kant Mangla, Atul Gupta and two others.
