A member of a co-operative society cannot file a criminal complaint against the office-bearers of the society for their alleged actions, but must challenge them in the co-operative forum.

S. D. Bajaj, J.

1. Respondent-complainant Harbant Kaur as also petitioners 1 to 10 and proforma respondents 2 are all members of "guru Arjan dev Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. " which was formed and registered at Ludhiana on 25th April, 1969. The respondent was enrolled as such ok 23rd October, 1969 and duly reflected in the list of such members prepared on 9th April, 1979 at serial No.33. She paid to the Society Rs.4030.00 initidally and a further sum of Rs.250.00 as exemption fee on 3rd April, 1973. state Government of Punjab granted exemption to the Society in terms of sec. 56 of the Punjab Improvement Act, 1922 on 27th September, 1977 entitling it to divide its 30966 square yards of area into plots of 400 square yards each for allotment to its members. Allotment of plots to members was, however, made by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust on the recommendation of the Society based on draw of lots.

2. Accused No.1 to 5 are allegedly self-imposed office-bearers of the society who are stated to have illegally admitted accused 6 to 12, the kith and kin of accused 1, 2 and 4 as members of the Society subsequently after 23rd october, 1969 but before 9th April, 1979, conspired together inter se to allot to members aforesaid residential plots of 400 square yards each only to defeat the legal rights of the complainant and other legal members who were enrolled as snembers before May, 1970 when the land, now decided to be allotted, was purchased. While doing so accused 1, 2 and 4 are alleged to have sworn in false affidavits, accused No.3 is alleged to have fabricated the list of members on 9th April, 1979 by inclusion therein of the names of accused 6 to 12 and accused Nos.2 and 5 are alleged to have cheated respondent-complainant of rs.4250.00 detailed in para No.1 above.

3. Respondent-complainant Smt. Harbant Kaur, therefore, filed against accused 1 to 12 criminal complaint Annexure P.1 under Sections 406, 420, 421, 465, 468, 471, 193, 477-A, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for their illegal activities aforesaid in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, ludhiana. Summoning order Annexure P.5 was passed therein by the learned trial Court on 12th November, 1987, summoning the accused-petitioners and proforma respondents 2 and 3 before it for trial under Sections 406, 421, 465 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Ten out of twelve persons, arrayed as accused in the complaint annexure P.1 have filed in this Court Criminal Misc. No.8237-M of 1987 for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. Remaining two persons arrayed as accused in the complaint have been impleaded as proforma respondents in the Cri. Misc, aforesaid. The grounds set out in para 6 thereof claiming the desired relief are (i) that the criminal action initiated more than 3 years after the alleged allotment of plots to its members by the Society in the year 1984 does not lie (ii) that the deposit of Rs.4250.00 was made by the complainant with the Society contradistinguished from accused 2 and 5 who did not incur any personal responsibility on its receipt from the complainant or by crediting it into the funds of the Society ; (iii) that the allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy, transfer of plots to ineligible members levelled against the accused are all unfounded ones because respondent complainant as member of the Co-operative Society never challenged the allotment of plots to alleged ineligible members and the election of office-bearers in accused-petitioners 1 to 5 in terms of Co-operative Societies act and that the complaint has been filed by the respondent in a revengeful spirit only to harass the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 because she did not get the desired allotment of plot through draw of lots while respondents 1 to 5 and the kith and kin of respondents 1, 2 and 4 got them.

5. I have heard Shri Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioners, shri K. S. Keer, Advocate, for respondent No.1 an