Criminal Miscellanious No.39403 OF 2006 ***** (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ****** BIJAY KUMAR KEDIA, SON OF SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD KEDIA, RESIDENT OF POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION BHAWANIPUR RAJDHAM, DISTRICT PURNEA ……………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRAWAN KUMAR KEDIA, SON OF SHRI PALIRAM KEDIA, RESIDENT OF POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION BHAWANIPUR RAJDHAM, DISTRICT PURNEA …………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ******* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. S. D. SANJAY, ADVOCATE MR. GOPAL PRASAD GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- MR. SANJEET KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application for quashing of the entire First Information Report of K. Hat Police Station Case No. 315 of 2006 and the charge sheet that has been submitted on 31.08.2007 during the pendency of this application. 3. Before giving a summary of the allegations, it may be pointed out that at the initial stage, the investigation 2 was done and the case was found to be false. Later, it appears that re-investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner only. At the initial stage, the Government employees of the Factory Inspectors Officer were also made accused and were subsequently exonerated. 4. The allegations, in short, are that Paliram Kedia had established a business by installing a saw mill. It is said that the petitioner was appointed as a Munshi of Paliram Kedia . On his violation, the petitioner applied for a factory license and got his name added as one of the owners of the saw mill. The Opposite Party No. 2 alleges that the petitioner has interpolated in the said factory license by inserting his name as one of the ‘owners’ of the saw mill in connivance with the Factory officials and shown himself to be the ‘occupier’ of the factory. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a dispute between Paliram Kedia and Bijay Kumar Kedia regarding the business and as such, the petitioner was thrown out of the business, which resulted in the petitioner filing a title suit numbered as 133 of 2003 for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of the accounts. In the suit, the written statement was filed in which it has been stated that there was no requirement for obtaining a license under the Factories Act to run a 3 saw mill and as such, license was obtained with ulterior motive by the petitioner. As a consequence of the civil suit, the Opposite Party No. 2 who is the son of Paliram Kedia filed a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 25.03.2004 alleging that the petitioner had stolen the title deeds of the land on which the saw mill was situated. The petitioner had filed a quashing application before this Court and this Court by order dated 06.07.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 21198 of 2004 quashed the entire criminal proceedings in view of the fact that the original sale deed has been produced by the petitioner in the Title Suit No. 133 of 2003. 6. In the present case, the allegation that the petitioner has inserted his name in the license of the factory is apparently based on the license produced by the Opposite Party No. 2 which indicates that the name of the petitioner was in fact missing from the license, dated 07.08.1989. On the other hand, before this Court, the photocopy of the original license has been produced as Annexure-4 which indicates that the petitioner’s name is mentioned in the license for running a saw mill. It is also an admitted fact that the original copy of the license has been filed in the suit. Therefore, according to this Court, the only question that has to be decided is as to whether the petitioner was partner of the alleged firm and 4 if he is found to be a partner, then, he would be entitled for rendition of the accounts. The petitioner has perhaps used the license as one of the factors to indicate that he was a partner of the firm. 7. These aspects of the matter can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court and at present, I find that institution of the criminal case is not the proper remedy. 8. Accordingly, the First Information Report of K. Hat Police Station Case No. 315 of 2006 and the subsequent charge sheet submitted on 31.08.2007 are quashed. 9. However, I may make it clear that any observation made in this case will not prejudice the Court minds or influence the Court while interpreting the issues involved in the title suit. 10. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 28TH APRIL, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND