Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 2112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Pandurang S/o Tukaram Thakare – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Cooperative Department – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 110 of 2003
Decided On : 27-10-2016
For the Petitioners: Shri R.L. Khapre and Shri Amol Deshpande.
For the Respondents: Smt. K.S. Joshi, Shri S.B. Ahirkar, Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Shri V.B. Gawli, Shri A.S. Mardikar, Shri A.M. Tirukh and Shri R.J. Kankale.
Headnote:
Cognisable Offence - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act - Sections 154(3), 155, 156(3), 190, 201 - The court held that the petitioner failed to follow the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the court directly. The court emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's reliance on the audit report and inquiry proceedings under Section 83 of the Act of 1960 was deemed premature as those proceedings had not attained finality. The court found that the allegations did not prima-facie reveal commission of a cognisable offence and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the communication from the Police Station Officer refusing to register an offence based on the petitioner's report alleging illegal activities by the temporary Board of Directors of a sugar factory. The petitioner sought relief and a direction to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the court directly. The court emphasized the need to follow the prescribed modalities on the refusal of the police authorities to register the First Information Report. The court also deemed the petitioner's reliance on the audit report and inquiry proceedings under Section 83 of the Act of 1960 as premature, as those proceedings had not attained finality. The court concluded that the allegations did not prima-facie reveal commission of a cognisable offence and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had followed the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the court directly. Additionally, the court considered the premature reliance on the audit report and inquiry proceedings under Section 83 of the Act of 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The court also highlighted that reliance on proceedings that had not attained finality was premature and unjustified.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no case had been made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 06.12.2002 issued by the Police Station Officer, Shirpur, Taluka Malegaon by which the petitioner had been informed that after verifying the relevant record, no prima-facie case has been made out for registering any offence in terms of report dated 21.10.2002 made by the petitioner. A prayer has also been made to direct the State Government to hand over investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. Facts found relevant for considering the grievance raised in the writ petition are that one Shri Balaji Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Maslapen, Taluka Risod, District Washim (hereinafter referred to as the sugar factory) was duly registered as a Cooperative Society on 22.03.1985 under provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960). The petitioner claims to be a member of the said sugar factor. According to the petitioner, initially the State Government nominated a provisional committee for managing the affairs of the sugar factory. This board was initially appointed on 07.01.1987 and various extensions came to be granted to the said board from time to time. This provisional committee continued till 06.01.1992. According to the petitioner, by virtue of orders passed in W.P. No. 2619/1997 this board was restrained from taking any major policy decision. However in breach of this restriction, on 29.12.1998 a sale deed came to executed on behalf of the sugar factory by which its Distillery Unit was sold for a consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/- in favour of Vaibhav Liquor Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the offset price of the distillery being Rs. 7.61 crores and the respondent No. 20 having made an offer of Rs. 5.61 crores, the Distillery Unit was sold for a sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- only. According to petitioner this transaction of sale of Distillery as well as various other transactions entered into by temporary Board of Directors amounted to commission of cognisable offence under provisions of Sections 406, 420, 425, 468, 471, 477(a) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code). On that basis the petitioner lodged a report with Police Station Shirpur on 21.10.2002.
3. The respondent No. 6 herein on 06.12.2002 informed the petitioner that after verifying the documents filed by the petitioner along with his report, no prima-facie case was made out under the provisions of the Penal Code for registering an offence. It was stated that the petitioner was free to approach the Court of law. The petitioner being aggrieved by this communication has filed the present writ petition on 17.03.2003.
4. Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 6 was not justified in refusing to register an offence in terms of the petitioner's report dated 21.10.2002. According to him, various instances that were referred to in the report dated 21.10.2002 lodged by the petitioner clearly made out a case of commission of cognisable offences under aforesaid provisions. After referring to the interim order passed in W.P. No. 2619/1997 restraining the temporary Board of Directors from taking any major policy decision, it was submitted that disregarding these orders, the distillery in question came to be sold on 29.12.1998 for a consideration which was below the market value of the said property. The Distillery was sold for Rs. 95,00,000/- in favour of M/s Vaibhav Liquors Pvt. Ltd. though as per its tender bid, an amount of Rs. 5,61,00,000/- had been quoted. The learned counsel also referred to various other transactions pertaining to purchase of Air Compressor by the sugar factory from M/s Chandresh Engineering Corporation. According to him, the Air Compressor in question was valued only at Rs. 95283/- when the same was purchased by M/s Chandresh Engineering Corporation from Ingorsoll Rand. The
