ORDER
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.
1. This Crl. M. C. is filed by the 3rd accused in Crime No. 561/97 registered by the Central Police Station, Ernakulam alleging offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings against him.
2. The complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and two other accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam alleging offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. was taken on file in Crl. M.P. 10108/97 and forwarded to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the Ernakulam Central Police registered Crime No. 561/97 against the petitioner and two others. While the investigation was commenced by the police, the petitioner has filed the above Crl. M.C. to quash the entire proceedings against him.
3. Though this Court stayed the investigation and the entire proceedings as against the petitioner alone as per order in Crl. M.P. No. 4287/97 dated 15-12-1997, it is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that in view of that order so far no investigation is conducted by the police in this case.
4. The complaint is filed by the 1st respondent, a Public Limited Company against the partnership firm as the 1st accused and its partners-accused 2 and 3 alleging that accused 2 and 3 are partners of the 1st accused firm and they were in charge and were responsible to the conduct of the business of the 1st accused-firm. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. cannot lie in this case since the complainant is a public limited company which is not a natural but juristic person and the offence is alleged against the 1st accused partnership firm which is also not a natural but juristic person. According to him, in order to attract the provisions of cheating under Section 415, I.P.C. there must be a fraudulent inducement by a natural person whereby a natural person should have been deceived to deliver any property. Therefore, according to him, since no natural person is either fraudulently induced or deceived in this case, the provisions of Section 415 so as to attract Section 420 of I.P.C. are not applicable in this case. This argument though highly technical and attractive, is not sustainable.
5. Section 11 of I.P.C. defines ‘person’ which reads as follows :
11. ‘Person’ The word ‘person’ includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.” Therefore, from the very definition of ‘person’ it is clear that any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, is a person within the ambit of the I.P.C.
6. Section 415 of I.P.C. refers to deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, a plain reading of Section 415 establishes that Company, firm and other juristic person come within the definition of ‘person’ for the purpose of Section 415 of the I.P.C. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner has to be rejected.
7. The petitioner has contended that he is only a partner of the 1st accused-firm and all the allegations are made in the complaint against the 2nd accused alone and therefore, the prosecution against him is incompetent and unsustainable. It is true that in the complaint it is stated that the 2nd accused had approached the complainant for doing the business of purchase and sale of shares for the 1st accused and the complainant had been purchasing and selling shares of various companies in the name of the 1st accused on the basis of the orders placed by the 2nd accused. But it is also stated in the complaint that accused 2 and 3 are the partners of the 1st accused-firm and they were in charge and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the 1st accused-firm.
8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the bald and vague allegations that the 3rd accused, petitioner herein was in charge and responsible for the conduct of business of the 1st accused-firm along with the 2nd accused, absolutely no allegation is made in the complaint nor any material is produced before the Court by the complainant to prove that he was actually in charge and responsible for the conduct of business of the 1st accused-firm. The decision in Sham Sundar v. State of Haryana AIR 1989 SC 1982 laying down the proposition that except the partner who is in charge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, the other partners should not be prosecuted, since they may not be even in the knowledge of the actual conduct of the business of the firm, relied upon for the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, has no application to the facts of this case. In that case a partnership firm along with its partners were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act and they were convicted and sentenced for that offence. When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, the apex Court held that it would be a travesty of justice to prosecute all partners and asked them to prove under the proviso to Sub-section (1) that offence was committed without their knowledge. It is also held that accused No. 3 therein who was conducting the business of the firm is liable for the offences and confirming the conviction and sentence against him, set aside the conviction and sentence as against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and acquitted them from all the charges.
9. In this case the petitioner seeks to quash the entire proceedings at the threshold even before the commencement of the investigation as directed by the learned Magistrate. The question whether the petitioner was in charge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, is a matter for investigation and if it is found on investigation that he was only a sleeping partner or not in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, he can be exonerated by the investigating officer while laying the charge before the Court.
10. It is well settled that a complainant need not state all his contentions in his complaint alleging offence against the accused. If it is found that there are sufficient factual foundation for the offence alleged against the accused in the complaint filed before the Court, this Court should not quash the proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this case it is clear that the 1st respondent has alleged that accused 2 and 3 are the partners of the 1st accused-firm in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the 1st accused-firm and specific allegations with regard to cheating alleged to have committed by the 1st accused against the complainant are made in the complaint so as to bring out the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the accused. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Annexure-I complaint filed by the 1st respondent and Annexure-II F.I.R. registered by the police against him should be quashed in this proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. Hence this Crl. M.C. is dismissed.