Dismissed

Vipul Chandok v. Sheetal Chandok

Telangana HC15 Feb 2012CRLP/1807/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for allegedly forged retirement from a partnership, the High Court rejected the plea. It held that the complaint contains specific averments of forgery and account manipulation that cannot be assessed at this stage, thus investigation must proceed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition to quash proceedings in Cr.No.31 of 2002 was dismissed, allowing the investigation to continue.

Vipul Chandok Vs Sheetal Chandok — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRL.P.No.1807 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused in Cr.No.31 of 2002 of I Town Police Station, Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 418, 465, 468 and 471 IPC, to quash the proceeding therein.

¶5

The first respondent-Seetal Chandok presented a complaint before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad on 18-1-2012. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioners herein had shown in the partition deed dated 12.12.2011 as if the complainant retired from partnership business with effect from 1-4-2005. According to the complainant, she never retired from the partnership business and the accounts have been manipulated by the petitioners herein. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer I Town Police Station, Nizamabad under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the Station House Officer registered a case in Cr.No.31 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 403, 406, 418, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. Hence, this petition by the accused seeking the prayer stated supra.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the partnership deed dated 15.5.2005 indicates of retirement of the complainant from the partnership business, in which case the question of falsification of accounts to deprive the complainant of the benefits of partnership business does not arise.

¶8

I have gone through the complaint averments. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the complaint need to be noted and it is thus:

¶9

“That the complainant has not signed any document either for reconstitution of the firm or dissolution of the firm “M/s. Satguru Enterprises”. That the complainant immediately got issued a legal notice dated 28-4-2011 to the Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Main Branch, godown Road, Nizamabad, demanding that she be furnished a copy of partnership dated 31.3.1997 of “M/s. Satguru Enterprises” and also demanded that the bank shall furnish all the final accounts of the firm since 1998 till the date of issuance of notice.

¶10

That the complainant finally obtained a copy of partnership deed dated 12.12.2011 (effective from 1.4.2005) in which the complainant is shown as retiring partner and in which her signature was forged to show that she was retiring from the business and the said forged document was created by the accused No.l and 2 and was used to mislead the Bank into considering the complainant as a retired partner and also to deny her rightful share in profit of the firm in which she was partner and also to deny her and dupe her of her initial investment of Rs.7 lakhs.”

¶11

The complainant has specifically asserted that her signatures in partnership dated 12.12.2011 are forged.

¶12

Such is the averments in the complaint,

¶13

investigation in Cr.No.31 of 2012 cannot be interdicted invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶14

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶15

rkk Dated: 15-2-2012

Vipul Chandok v. Sheetal Chandok

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipul Chandok v. Sheetal Chandok

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

S.K.Abdul Nayeem Vs State of Ap.

Chinna Swamy Pandian Vs The State of Ap.

B.Damodar Reddy Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

J.Kanaka Durga Prasad Vs Smt. Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha

Munnamgi Rajeshwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thalluri Hanuma , Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh