Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Md. Ehsanul Haque @ Md M E Haque Son Of Late Md Ganimat Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 75981 of 2019
Decided On : 06-01-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B and 504 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating, conspiracy and insult – FIR – Quashing application – Allegation is that accused persons have with an intention and conspiracy planned to cheat people and after opening branch offices and collecting money from customers they have fled away with some of Rs. 5 Crores approximately – Present application cannot be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone because in a case where this Court finds that initiation or continuance of a proceeding itself is an abuse of process of court or that in interest of justice power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked and exercised, this Court may entertain application and examine the same to find out whether facts of case require interference. (Para 12)
Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 – Section 50(2) – Companies Act, 1956 – Section 446 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B and 504 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating, conspiracy and insult – FIR – Quashing application – Petitioners are members /officials of Central Bank Employees Savings and Credit Self Supported Co-operative Societies Limited – Sheet-anchor of his submission is that once society has gone in liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed, in view of Section 50(2) of Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act 1996, no criminal proceeding could have been maintained against these petitioners – Bar created under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of Act of 1996 would not cover lodgment of FIR – Words “other legal proceedings” are to be construed looking to object, text and context of entire Act of 1996 – Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of Act of 1996 cannot be interpreted in the manner in which it has been sought to be done by pleading that this provision creates bar of jurisdiction in lodging first information report against co-operative society, it’s director or officers if they have committed a cognizable offence – Question as to whether sub-section (2) of Section 50 of Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 may be interpreted to mean and understand that words “other legal proceedings” occurring thereunder create a bar in lodgment of a first information report against co-operative society registered under the said Act, its Director(s), Officer(s), Manager(s) or a member of society and that it would also cover “the criminal proceeding” against them?, referred to Division Bench of this Court for consideration. (Paras 13, 26 and 27)
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. - This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred seeking quashing of the First Information Report giving rising to Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2008 dated 08.02.2008 registered under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR has been lodged after a written complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate being Complaint Case No. 584C of 2007 was referred to the jurisdictional Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
2. In the written complaint, the complainant/informant alleged that he being a businessman had opened a saving account in Central Bank Employees Savings and Credit Self Supported Cooperative Society Limited having its principal office at Supaul and a branch office at Saharsa. The informant was depositing a sum of Rs. 200/-per day through an agent and the amount was being entered in this pass-book which ultimately matured for payment at the end of the one year on 09.03.2006.
3. It is alleged in the written complaint that when the informant went to the Branch office for getting his maturity payment, he came to know that all the officers had closed the Branch and had fled away with the money of the investors. The informant was told by the gent that all the officers of the Bank have closed the Branch and they have fled away with the money. The informant alleged that he met the officers and requested them to make payment but the payment was not made, the informant came to know that the accused persons had engaged some persons who were misleading the customers so that the customers do not lodge any case against the accused persons. The allegation is that the accused persons have with an intention and conspiracy planned to cheat the people and after opening branch offices and collecting money from the customers they have fled away with some of Rs. 5 Crores approximately.
4. In course of argument, initially, a question arose as to whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be maintained for quashing of the FIR. In this regard learned APP for the State had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. Vrs. Shri P.P. Sharma & Anr., (1991) AIR SC 1260 which arises out of the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 405. Learned APP submits that in the case of P.P. Sharma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is only after the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences upon consideration of the materials so placed before him, then only proceeding in a criminal case commenced and in paragraph 40 of the said judgment following observations have been made:
40. On completion of the investigation, if it appears to the investigator that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to place the accused for trial, the investigating officer shall forward to the court a report in that regard along with the evidence and the accused, if he is in the custody to the Magistrate. If on the other hand he opines that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds connecting the accused with the commission of the offence he may forward the report to the Magistrate accordingly. The Magistrate is empowered to consider the report and on satisfying that the accused prima facie committed the offence, take cognizance of the offence and would issue process or warrant to the accused, if on bail, to appear on a date fixed for trial or to commit him for trial to the court of session. It is not incumbent upon the Magistrate to accept the report of the investigating officer that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to connect the accused with the commission of the crime; he may direct further investigation or suo moto the investigator may himself submit supplemental chargesheet under S. 173(8) if he subsequently becomes aware of certain facts or itself or through a subordina
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
