the accused are the appellants and they challenge the dismissal of their application under section 482 of the companye of criminal procedure companye for short by the high companyrt of andhra pradesh.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 307 of 1983 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th numberember 1982 of the andhra pradesh high court in criminal miscellaneous petition number 1936 of 1982.
they took a printing press from the 1st respondent in terms of an agreement dated december 3 1980 with a view to carrying on the printing business.
20000 with the 1st respondent and pay rs.
number 1140/81 for recovery of damages.
after production of the money receipt in companyrt 1st respondent filed a companyplaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on the money receipt and thereby companymission of offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 i.p.c.
20000 in support of the claim in the suit.
on receiving summonses from the companyrt the appellants objected to maintainability of the criminal action and later move the high companyrt of andhra pradesh for quashing the said proceedings by companytending that in the absence of complaint from the companyrt the prosecution was barred in view of s. 195 1 b ii of the companye.
dispute arose between the parties over the companypliance of the terms of the agreement whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants o.s.
number 358/81 for refund of rs.
appellants filed o.s.
500 p.m. as also 50 of the net profits to 1st respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. the short question arising in this appeal by special leave is whether in the absence of necessary companyplaint by the civil companyrt where a money receipt alleged to have been forged was produced prosecution for offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 read with s. 34 of the indian penal companye would be maintainable.
number 609/81 for mandatory injunction and o.s.
in support of this contention reliance was placed on s. 340 of the companye.
along with their plaint appellants produced the original companytract as also the money receipt for rs.
the agreement stipulated that the appellants would have to deposit rs.
the appellants are father and son respectively.
8638 on the footing that the same had been paid to 1st respondent by cheques and in cash.
subba rao for the appellant.
20000 claimed to have been deposited with 1st respondent and for recovery of rs.
kanta rao for the respondent.
