Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ramesh Dadarao Bagdure and Omprakash Satyanrayan Baheti, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking to quash an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga dated 17.08.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 2/2022. That order had confirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga dated 22.12.2020, which directed issuance of summons against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The dispute arose from a partnership firm named M/s. Bhagwant Warehouse, formed on 29.10.2002, with five partners including the petitioners, respondent no.2 Sundarlal Ramnivas Darak, and one Pandurang Attal (since deceased). The partnership was to carry on warehousing business on land belonging to Pandurang Attal and petitioner no.1. After Pandurang Attal's death, a new partnership deed was executed on 21.12.2013 between the petitioners and the deceased, but respondent no.2 was excluded. Respondent no.2 alleged that the petitioners misappropriated the partnership's warehouse and land, and cheated him by excluding him from the business. The trial court found a prima facie case and issued summons. The petitioners challenged this by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. The High Court, in its judgment, examined the allegations and held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case for the offences alleged. The court noted that the dispute involved serious questions of fact regarding the ownership and use of partnership property, which could only be decided after trial. The court also observed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) should be exercised sparingly and not to stifle legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the lower courts and directing the trial to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Summons - Section 482 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The High Court declined to quash the summons issued against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 IPC, holding that the allegations in the complaint and the material on record disclosed a prima facie case for the offences alleged. The court observed that the dispute involved misappropriation of partnership property and cheating, which required trial. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - Sections 420, 406 read with 34 IPC - Partnership Dispute - The court found that the respondent's complaint alleged that the petitioners, as partners, dishonestly misappropriated the partnership's warehouse and land, and cheated the respondent by excluding him from the business. The court held that such allegations, if proved, could constitute the offences, and therefore the trial court was justified in issuing summons. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirming the issuance of summons against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed and set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, upholding the orders of the learned JMFC and Additional Sessions Judge, and directing the trial to proceed.
Law Points
- Prima facie case for summoning
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Partnership dispute and criminal liability
- Sections 420 and 406 IPC
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
