TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (hereinafter referred to as "firm") was constituted and a partnership deed was executed on the same date with the intention to carry on business of liquor. The firm consisted of seven partners. B. The said partnership firm was reconstituted and a deed dated 5.3.2002 was executed inducting among others the respondent no. 1, namely, Shri Ajay Arora as a partner of the firm and the said firm now consisted of twelve partners. As per clause 10 contained in the deed, the partnership firm was to be terminated on 31.3.2003. C. The said firm participated in the excise contracts for Bhopal District for the year 2002-2003 and had been a successful bidder. The excise auctions for the year 2003-2004 was held on 6.3.2003 and the said firm participated in the auction and being a successful bidder, the contract was awarded to it. D. The respondent no. 1 filed a complaint alleging that while negotiating and accepting the contract for the year 2003-2004, the reconstituted partnership deed dated 5.3.2002 was utilised, wherein the said complainant-respondent no. 1 had also invested a huge amount, but the said deed was subsequently replaced by a forged/fabricated deed dated 6.3.2003 in which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered to be sufficient by the authorities for taking further action, the case was referred to the Principal Secretary to the Excise Commissioner vide letter dated 4.12.2006 for conducting further inquiry into the matter. J. Shri D.R. Johri, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, conducted the inquiry and submitted an inquiry report dated 1.5.2007 recording the findings similar to the report dated 2.12.2005. The view expressed therein is that the appellant being the head of the District Excise Office, Bhopal, was indirectly responsible. K. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide letter dated 23.8.2007 informed the Excise Commissioner that no ground was found to initiate the departmental inquiry against the appellant. L. In the aforesaid background, the respondent no. 1 filed a complaint on 21.1.2008 against the appellant and two others under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as 'CJM'), Bhopal. The CJM recorded the statement of the complainant and after considering the pre-charge evidence, vide order dated 10.4.2008, registered the case against the appellant and two others under Sections 420 and 120- B IP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had contributed huge amount to get the liquor contract for the year 2003-04, amounts to a fraud which had been committed in the office headed by the appellant. It could not have been possible to replace the earlier partnership deed without the connivance of the appellant. The manner in which the deed dated 6.3.2003 has been executed, itself reveals that it is a forged deed. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Shri Arvind Varma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh has supported the case of the appellant submitting that the reports submitted by Shri B.K. Vyas and Shri D.R. Joshi were not accepted by the State Government. More so, once the Lokayukta had examined the grievance of the complainant in detail and did not find any truth in it, the High Court ought to have quashed the complaint. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 dated 21.1.2008 in the court of CJM, Bhopal, serious allegations of cheating by replacing the partnership deed dated 5.3.2002 by a forged partnership deed dated 6.3.2003 with the connivance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record of the Excise Commissioner, Gwalior makes it evident that the excise auction for the year 2003-04 had been on the basis of the partnership deed dated 5.3.2002 and the said deed was on record upto 11.3.2003. As regards what had happened in the office of the appellant and who had done it and whether the appellant can be held responsible for the same, would depend upon the evidence adduced in the court. 11. In Debendra Nath Bhattacharyya & Ors. v. The State of W.B. & Anr., AIR 1972 SC 1607, this Court held: "The mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that the case must necessarily fail. On the other hand, such grounds may indicate the need for proceeding further in order to discover the truth after a full and proper investigation." 12. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1947, this Court held that where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or where the discretion e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is evident that for taking cognizance or issuing process in a complaint case, the court must have merely a prima facie satisfaction that there is some material on record to proceed against the accused. In the instant case, the CJM, Bhopal issued process after being fully satisfied that some material was available on record to proceed against the appellant and others. 16. In Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3624, this Court held : "22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frus....