High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Naresh Magoo & Anr v. Mangal Singh & Anr - CRR-237-2006  RD-P&H 386 (27 January 2006)
DATE OF DECISION: 2.2.2006
Naresh Magoo and another ...PETITIONERS
Mangal Singh and another ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
PRESENT:- Mr.Harsh Kinra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mehtab S.Gill, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that a complaint under Sections 405, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was instituted before the trial Court. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar dismissed the complaint under Sections 405, 406 and 420 IPC and summoned the petitioners only under section 506 IPC. Copy of the order is Annexure P3. Revision (Annexure P4) was filed against this order by the petitioners. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar accepted the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 and summoned the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 IPC also.
A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1) shows that the complainants were only wanting to render accounts of the partnership firm created between them vide partnership deed dated 23.7.2001 (Annexure P2).
No offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
In para No.2 of the impugned judgment, a number of cheques given on different dates, given by the complainant to the petitioners, between 23.7.2001 when the partnership deed came into force and the partnership deed was dissolved i.e. on 10.4.2003, are mentioned. Prima facie offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out.
Without going into the merits of the case any further, I do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.