Instead of appearing before the Trial Magistrate and companytesting the case, the respondents chose to approach the High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings initiated and process issued against them.
After inquiries and persuasions her son told the appellant in July, 1999 that he had suffered mental shock upon closure of his opened shop in the year 1991 at Delhi by reason of the order of injunction passed by the companyrt of law.
He disclosed that the said injunction had been granted against him on the ground that the partnership of which the appellant was also a partner stood dissolved on 16.11.1974.
The companyplainant claims to be a partner of M s.Chandmal Gangabishan, a firm registered under the Partnership Act and carrying on business of Bhujia and other allied products with the trade mark HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA.
On request of the appellant, the case was adjourned to 10th March, 2000 when she appeared before the Magistrate along with her three witnesses out of whom one was hand writing expert.
Rameshwar Aggarwal retired from the firm in the year 1958.
According to the averments made in the companyplaint, the partnership business was initially companymenced in the year 1956 with four partners, namely, Ganga Bishan Agarwal, Moolchand Agarwal, Rameshwarlal Agarawl and Satidas Agarwal.
Upon scrutiny it appeared that the signatures, purporting to be of Gangabishan Aggarwal and Moolchand Aggarwal were also number genuine and had been forged besides her signatures.
She referred to number of circumstances in her companyplaint to show that the forgery had been companymitted by the respondent accused.
Their application was allowed vide the order impugned, hence the present appeal.
The appellant alleged that when in the first week of June, 1999 she went to Delhi to attend her ailing son Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, found him to be suffering from serious mental depression on account of serious nervous breakdown.
The Trial Magistrate received the companyplaint on 21st January, 2000 and fixed the next date on 7th February, 2000 for examination of the companyplainant and her witnesses in terms of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
They started using the brand name HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA in the year 1965.
The appellant was admitted as a partner of the said firm on 31st October, 1969.
After recording their statements, the case was adjourned and ultimately the Trial Magistrate, vide his order dated 5.4.2000, found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and, therefore, issued summons for their presence on the next date fixed for 19th June, 2000.
She informed her son of number having signed any deed of dissolution of the partnership.
The said application was advertised inviting objections.
The firm was reconstituted by admitting Shri Shivkishan Aggarwal as partner in place of the retiring partner.
She alleged that Accused Nos.1 to 4 have brought into existence the self forged deed of dissolution for their personal gains and to the detriment of the partners of the firm of M s.Chandmal Gangabishan.
When Ashok Kumar Aggarwal handed over to the appellant a xerox companyy of the deed of dissolution, she was shocked to know that her signatures had been forged.
An application for registration of trademark of HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA and Logo HRB was filed with the appropriate authority by all the partners on 29th December, 1972.
In para 22 of the companyplaint, the appellant catalogued a number of instances allegedly showing the forgery by the respondents.
Opposition proceedings were companymenced at the instance of one Madanlal on 12th January, 1976 which was rejected on 16.4.1980 and the trademark was registered on 27th January, 1981 in the name of the firm, of which the appellant was a partner.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court quashing her companyplaint and the order of the Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal for setting aside the order of the High Court with direction to the Magistrate for proceeding with the companyplaint in accordance with law.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
