SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
M/s. Rotary International South Asia Office - Petitioner
Versus
Salem Central Rotary Club - Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 509 of 2023, 459 of 2024, Crl. M.P. No. 18045 of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: G. Rajagopalan, N. Vijayabaskar, K.P. Ananthakrishnan
For the Respondent: Jayaseelan Gopalakrishnan

Registration under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act is unnecessary for entities already registered under a different law; non-registration does not result in criminal liability or justify magistrate cognizance.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 - Sections 4(4) and 52 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 200 - Cognizance taken by magistrate challenged - Petitioner's entity, registered under the Trust Act, is not required to be registered under the Societies Registration Act as per Section 4(4) - Non-registration does not constitute an offence under the Act, and the appropriate authority for action lies with the District Registrar, not the Magistrate - Petition allowed, setting aside the Magistrate's order. (Paras 6, 10, 26, 34)

(B) The court emphasized that the cognizance taken for non-registration is erroneous, as it’s not a penal offence, highlighting proper legal channels for addressing grievances regarding non-registration. (Paras 28, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a branch of Rotary International, was involved in a legal dispute over its non-registration under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which the complainant alleged as a basis for filing a private complaint. The court below took cognizance based on these allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that no cognizable offence existed regarding non-registration and that appropriate registration had been procured under other laws.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was required to register under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and whether cognizance could be taken for non-registration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the petitioner was already registered under a different law, the alleged non-registration does not warrant penal proceedings, thus the cognizance of the Magistrate was set aside as antithetical to established legal principles.

Result: Criminal revision petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. judicial cognizance of the offense under scrutiny (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments challenging the legitimacy of the complaint (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondent's defense claims against the petitioners (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court's analysis of relationship between entities involved. (Para 15)
5. court's analysis on the applicability of the laws (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. legal interpretation regarding necessity of registration (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. court's view on implications of non-registration (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. procedural error of respondent in approaching the magistrate (Para 29 , 30)
9. conditions under which the court can interfere with cognizance (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
10. final order quashing the magistrate's cognizance (Para 34)

ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

1. The cognizance of the alleged offence taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, culminating in the case in C.C. No.113/2023 by order dated 27.01.2023 in Crl. M.P. No.1973/2022 is put in issue before this Court by filing the present revision petitions.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petitions, in a nutshell, are as under :-

The petitioner is the President of the society under the name and style of Salem Central Rotary Club, a registered society as per the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the case of the complainant in the petition filed u/s 200 Cr.P.C. that the accused persons 2 to 26, as shown in the complaint are the members and administrators of various Rotary Clubs within the District of Salem and the said clubs are unregistered. In this regard, the defacto complainant addressed the Deputy Registrar to call upon the said clubs to register themselves under the act for which no action had been taken by the District Registrar and, hence the present private complaint was filed by the complainant.

3. Based on the said complaint, the court below ordered for enquiry u/s202 Cr.P.C. and in the absence of the report of the Station House Officer, inspite of repeated adjournments, after hearing the complainant, who appeared as party-in-person and after perusal of the records, found that the accused 2 to 26 were not registered under the Act and further inspite of the directions of the 1st respondent therein calling upon the respondents 2 to 26 therein to pay as the said societies were running for more than 45 years without registration and as no action had been taken to collect the fine and no steps also having not been taken by the 1st respondent therein on the complaint given by the complainant, held that a prima facie case had been made out for taking cognizance against the respondents therein and, accordingly, took cognizance against the 1st and 2nd respondents therein u/s 119, 166 and 166A of IPC and u/s 420 IPC against respondents 5 to 26 therein. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred by the respective petitioners.

4. Learned senior counsel, leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegations raised by the complainant are false and fabricated as the registration of the complainant association is “Salem Central Rotary Club” while that of the petitioner is “Rotary Club of Salem Central”. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that without even looking into the name, the private complaint has been filed which is only in vested interest.

5. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that international organisations need not register their branches under the local law and the petitioner being a branch of a global continent organisation, it need not be registered, however, without appreciating the above, the court below has erroneously took cognizance of the complaint, which deserves to be quashed.

6. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner and the other accused persons had not committed any fraud or cheating activities u/s 420 IPC and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top