IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30839 of 2007 SANJEEV KUMAR CHOUDHARY, son of Lateyogendra Choudhary, resident of village-Lohagir, P.S. Ujiarpur, District-Samastipur. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Raj Kishore Singh son of Pawan Sut Singh, resident of village-Kamla, P.S. Uziayarpur, District Samastipur. ----------- 4 16-02-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 21.11.2005 taking cognizance for offence u/s 406, 323, 347, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 I.P.C. has submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint petition would by itself go to show that it was out and out a dispute of partnership firm for which the present complaint case was filed with the sole motive of the complainant-partner to get his share of claimed amount of Rs.5,27,000/-. Counsel also submits that the plea of the complainant that there was a partnership agreement but that was not acted upon by the petitioner on the purported ground that the brick-kiln, subject matter of partnership, was in the name of Bhabhi of the petitioner, are such allegations which are capable of being adjudicated only before the appropriate and competent Civil Court. This Court also on a bare perusal of the complaint is fully satisfied that a dispute of apportionment of share and/or 2 profit of a partnership firm or rendering accounts there of cannot be made subject matter of a criminal case. The complainant- opposite party no.2 in fact by alleging in the complaint petition that the investment made by him in the partnership firm was sought to be swallowed by the petitioner by taking a plea that it was the Bhabhi of the petitioner who was owner of the brick-kiln, by itself would go to show that there was some sort of dispute with regard to continuance and working of the partnership firm. Considering the aforementioned aspect and the fact that the subject matter of the aforesaid complaint case which was subsequently sent to the police for investigation under sections 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was out and out a civil dispute, this Court would set aside the entire proceedings including the impugned order dated 21.11.2005 in Ujiarpur P.S. Case No. 118/2004. It is, however, made clear that nothing said in this order would affect right of the parties if they would approach the appropriate Civil Court for the resolution of the dispute in hand in a properly constituted civil suit. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)