-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1008 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1008 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1008 OF 2008 Mr. Pravin Ramrao Lonkar. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. M.S. Mohite for the Applicant. Mr. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE DATE DATE : 014TH AUGUST, 2008. : 014TH AUGUST, 2008. : 014TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel. 2. It is a dispute between two partners, the matter reached in Criminal prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. The Complainant claimed that he had kept blank papers with the accused in respect of his share at office of Llyod Chambers and though he had 50% share with the accused, the accused reduced the same to 11% and claimed his share to be 89%. The second contention of the complainant is, purchase of 1,000 boxes of tiles from which he was to receive 500 boxes being 50% share. However, these aspects did not materialize. The parties arrived at settlement and the Accused/Respondent had agreed to pay Rs.2,13,455/- to the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, a cheque dated 30.12.1997 came to be -:2:- issued. However, unfortunately, when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with the endorsement as account was closed. The notice which the accused has issued to the complainant dated 6th April 1998 appears to be an afterthought as cheque was already dishonoured on 4th April 1998. 3. Taking survey of all the facts and evidence recorded, it is obvious that the complainant did not initiate proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has his case of equal share/partnership, if this is so, mis-using the property belonging to partnership by the accused will not give a recourse to initiate criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 406 or 420 of I.P.C. The accused reasonably shall face civil liability. These basic aspects in the matter, cannot be ignored and consequently, the evidence recorded by the learned Judge in his Judgment of acquittal cannot be said to be perversed or erroneous. 4. Hence, leave to appeal rejected. (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)