Dismissed

Kanhaiya Lal and Brother and Ors. v. Pradeep Parper Mart

Chhattisgarh HC5 May 2024CRA/1248/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. The court held that since the dispute regarding the dissolved partnership firm was of a civil nature, the trial court was correct in refusing to register an offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Sections 177, 181, 193 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as sans merit.

Kanhaiya Lal and Brother and Ors. Vs Pradeep Parper… — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1248 of 2002

¶5

Kanhaiya Lal And Brother, A partnership Firms, Oil & Gocery Merchant, Gudiyari Raipur, District: Raipur.

¶6

Shri Ram Sanehi Agrawal, S/o Ram Tahal Agrawal, aged about 62 years, Partner MS Kanhaiya Lal & Brother Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil & District: Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pradeep Paper Mart A. Regd. Partnership Firm Ravi Shankar Shukla Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District: Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶13

06-05-2024

¶14

This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 09-09-2002, passed by 3^rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.7-B/2002, whereby the appellants application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court for registration of offence under Sections 177, 181, 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Contempt of Court against the respondent-Satish Kumar Dani & Beniram, partners of Pradeep Paper Mart firm.

¶15

Facts of the case, in brief, are that Pradeep Paper Mart was

¶16

¶17

a registered partnership firm whose partner was Satish Kumar Dani. The said firm was dissolved on 31/03/1997. Cousin’s brother of old partnership firm was in the name of Kanhaiya Lal & Brothers. Pradeep Paper Mart used to deposit the savings amount in the firm of Kanhaiya Lal & Brothers, who had accepted to pay 18% p.a. interest on the deposited amount. On 31/03/1997, Pradeep Paper Mart, partnership firm was dissolved and Satish Kumar Dani got the proprietorship right to do business in the name of Pradeep Paper Mart. He filed a claim of Rs. 9,62,000/against the appellant’s firm and demanded the said amount and interest.

¶18

After hearing, the Court had rejected his claim petition as it was not maintainable. In that claim, the appellants’ had submitted an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceedings against Satish Kumar Dani for giving false evidence and requested that sections 177, 181, 193 of the Indian Penal Code and Contempt of Court Act would be invoked upon him as also offence would be registered. The application was rejected by the trial court. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the

¶20

¶21

conclusion given by the trial court is not justified. He submit that false evidence was given by Satish Kumar Dani. Therefore, by setting aside the order in question passed by the trial Court, the application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be allowed and order may be passed for registration of offence against Satish Kumar Dani.

¶22

None appeared on behalf of respondent.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

¶24

It has been found by the trial court that as per the circumstances appearing in the case, Pradeep Paper Mart was earlier registered partnership firm whose partners were Beniram, Satish Kumar Dani and Ghanshyamdas. Later, the said firm was dissolved and Satish Kumar Dani filed a claim petition for recovery of dues of the said firm. It was a instinctive error to declare a partner in a firm when the firm had already been dissolved. Therefore, by not considering appropriate order of registration of offence, application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.

¶25

From the perusal of record, it is clear that the dispute is of

¶26

¶27

civil nature, which was filed before the trial Court was of civil nature. It is also clear that the trial court after reviewing the evidence adduced by both the parties had concluded that after the dissolution of previously registered partnership firm, Satish Kumar Dani, in a bona fide manner, claiming to be a partner had filed a claim petition for recovery of the amount.

¶28

In such a situation, no illegality is found in the conclusion given by the trial court after reviewing the facts and evidence available on record. Since the case is of civil nature, the conclusion given by the trial Court that of not passing the order for registration of offence against Satish Kumar Dani is not found illegal & erroneous.

¶29

10.Considering the matter in its entirety, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶30

11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants being sans merit is hereby dismissed.

¶31

SD/-

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶33

Amardeep

Kanhaiya Lal and Brother and Ors. v. Pradeep Parper Mart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal and Brother and Ors. v. Pradeep Parper Mart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rita Kumari

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs Pannalal

Deleted (Ram Saran) (Died) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shakuni and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gautam Yadav Vs Chhattu Dhruv