1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.410 OF 2009 Sureshchandra s/o Ramdayal Gattani, Age 45 years, occup. Business, r/o Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER (Orig.complainant) versus 1. Rajesh s/o Dineshchandra Gattani, Age 37 years, occup. Business, r/p Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 2. Nilesh s/o Dineshchandra Gattani, Age: 35 years, occup. Business, r/o. Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 3. Yogesh s/o Dineshchandra Gattani, Age 33 years, occup. business, r/o Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Orig.accused) ... Mr. D.S.Bharuka,Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. P.F.Patni, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ... WITH 2 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2009 Sureshchandra s/o Ramdayal Gattani, Age 45 years, occupation Business, r/o Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT (Orig.complainant) versus 1. Nandkishor s/o Ramkishan Zawar, Age: 45 years, Occup. Business, r/o c/o Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 2. Kishor s/o Babanrao Mahajan, Age: 40 years, Occup. service Salesman, r/o c/o. Gattani Building, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Orig.accused) ... Mr. D.S.Bharuka,Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.Latange, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DT: AUGUST 14TH, 2009 -------------------------- ... P.C.: 1. Rule. With the consent of Counsel for respective parties, who waive service, Rule is 3 made returnable forthwith. Heard. 2. The applicant Sureshchandra initiated proceedings before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, vide RCC No.1229/2007 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by order dt.29.5.2008 framed charge against the accused persons for an offense under Sections 468, 471, read with Section 34 of IPC. The said order was challenged before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, at Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision Nos. 193/2008 and 211/2008. The learned Judge, by order dt.21st Oct.,2008, allowed the revision and quashed the proceedings. The original complainant Sureshchandra, being aggrieved by such order of the revisional Court has assailed the same. 3. There is no controversy between the parties of a partnership commenced in the year 1984 and that, on 28.12.2006, Dineshchandra, one of the partner expired. Accused/respondent nos. 1 to 3 are sons of said Dineshchandra who were also allegedly looking after the partnership business. 4. The complainant canvassed that, without his knowledge and, without there being any authority, an application dt.16.1.2007 was made to the Food and Drugs Administration office, at Aurangabad, purported to be signed by Sureshchandra, as a partner, whereby the 4 authorities were informed (Page No.43) that the stock in trade of medicine shop is completely disposed. Whatever cosmetic items are left till 25.12.2006, they are also disposed of. The firm does not desire to continue with license and, consequently, the three licenses issued by the Department are surrendered and it was sought to be cancelled. 5. The controversy revolves to this application, dt.16.1.2007, as the applicant Sureshchandra challenges the same, as to its authenticity and informs that it was never activated by him, it was with sheer intention to dupe and deceive him from the fruits of the erstwhile partnership or from the fruits arising out of the partnership, a forged letter was prepared by accused and even signed by one of them. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave emphasis to Section 42 of Indian Partnership Act or rather 42-C thereof to come to the conclusion that the firm has come to an end, the partnership would not be continuing, its activities have come to a standstill. This was not the case of the complainant. His grievance was that there was no application made by him nor there was any authority vested in any of the accused to make such application dt.16.1.2007. 5 The controversy was centering to the letter, however, it is mistakenly taken to the recitals of the partnership deed, which was of no consequence for the learned Judge to have taken such recourse. The grievance is, the letter is a forged document with an intention to get the firm licenses cancelled, designed with ulterior motives. This letter was sought to be used as genuine, though accused knew it was forged and naturally accelerated the game to cheat and cause harm to the complainant. 7. Consequently, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge under challenge dt. 21.10.2008 is set aside and the criminal prosecution in RCC No.1229/2007, before the 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, is restored to original position. The parties to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 13th Oct.,2009. Both the applications allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/410-411-09crapl