Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 58
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Nehra, J.
Surinder Kumar Batra
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10420-M of 1991,
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1993
The criminal courts have jurisdiction to try an accused even if civil proceedings or arbitration proceedings are pending or have been concluded. The remedy of arbitration and criminal proceedings are two entirely different remedies with different scopes and purposes.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY - CIVIL LIABILITY - ARBITRATION - JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS - SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND ARBITRATION - DISTINCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered against them for alleged embezzlement of funds from a cooperative society. The FIR was registered based on a letter from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, alleging that the petitioners, as employees of the society, had misused their positions to embezzle funds amounting to Rs. 3,67,465.77.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the remedy of arbitration and criminal proceedings are two entirely different remedies with different scopes and purposes. Both remedies can go on simultaneously. The court further held that the criminal courts have jurisdiction to try an accused even if civil proceedings or arbitration proceedings are pending or have been concluded.
Issues: 1. Whether a person who has incurred both civil and criminal liability for the same act can be prosecuted criminally after civil proceedings or arbitration have been initiated or concluded. 2. Whether the criminal courts have jurisdiction to try an accused even if civil proceedings or arbitration proceedings are pending or have been concluded.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The civil liability of an accused for misappropriation of property is based on the right of the individual or institution to be reimbursed, while the criminal liability arises from the interest of society in deterring such conduct. 2. The State, representing society, has a duty to initiate criminal proceedings and punish the accused for crimes, even if the individual victim does not wish to prosecute. 3. The remedy of arbitration and criminal proceedings are two entirely different remedies with different scopes and purposes. Both remedies can go on simultaneously. 4. The criminal courts have jurisdiction to try an accused even if civil proceedings or arbitration proceedings are pending or have been concluded.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 171 dated 3/08/1989 registered at Police Station Abohar under Ss. 408/409/465/468/471/120-B, I. P.C. which was registered on the basis of a letter issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Fazilka to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. The letter reads as under :-
"Subject : Regarding registration of FIR against the employees of the Burj Hanumangarh Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Rs. 3,67,465.77. In the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society, it has reported as per Audit Report of the Inspector Halca that the employees of the society by misusing their office have used Rs. 3,67,465.77 in their personal affairs and embezzled, the detail of which is in accordance with the Resolution of Managing Committee and Special Audit Report. Therefore, against these employees case be registered for about Rs. 3,67,465.77 on account of breach of trust and investigation be made. Sd/- Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Fazilka."
Copy to :
1. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur.
2. Inspector, Vigilance, C/o The Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank, Ludhiana for information and necessary action. Sd/- Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Fazilka."
2. Notice of this petition was given to the State. Joginder Singh, Sub-Inspector, SHO Police Station, Saddar Abohar has filed para-wise reply by way of an affidavit and has stated that a Special Audit report was made by Shri Om Prakash Sub Inspector, Audit Co-operative Societies, Abohar-II; that according to the Audit report, the employees of the Society, committee members of the society, Government employees and all the petitioners have embezzled an amount of Rs. 3,67,465.77. He further stated that all the petitioners were working in the Central Cooperative Bank Branch, Kundal; that Raj Kumar, petitioner was working as Branch Manager, Ram Chander was the Cashier and Surinder Kumar Batra was also Cashier in the Branch Kundal during the year 1985-86. He further stated that Baldev Singh son of Balwant Singh, Gurcharan Singh son of Pritam Singh, Surinder Singh son of Bikar Singh, Baljinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh and Amritpal Singh son of Baldev Singh were shown as residents of village Ghuriana but in fact these persons do not belong to village Ghuriana that Darshan Singh, President, Inder Singh, Vice President, Sukhdeep Singh, Committee member, Hari Singh, Committee member Mohinder Pal Secretary and Gurmail Singh, S.M.(F) prepared and passed Maximum Cash Credit Limits in respect of the above-said persons but the said persons did not deposit the amount of their share in the bank; that the petitioners in league and connivance with the committee members, Secretary and Salesmen of Society, Inspector and Sub-Inspector had shown the amount in the documents in the name of the above 5 fictitious persons. It has been further stated in the affidavit filed by Joginder Singh, SHO that it was the duty of the petitioners to check the shares of the persons before advancing the payment, but the petitioners failed to do so and in this way, they all embezzled the amount of Rs. 70,191.75 shown in the name of the fictitious persons; that Surinder Kumar son of Sh. Lachman Dass and Subhash Chander son of Nihal Chand were members of Burj Hanumangarh Co-operative Agri. Service Society Ltd. but their maximum cash credit limits were not sent by the Society to the Branch Manger, Central Bank, Kundal. He further stated that all the petitioners and Secretary, Mohinder Pal and Salesman, Gurmail Singh added their names in the maximum Cash Credit Limit and in this way they made false entries in the record of the bank and made the payment to Surinder Kumar and Subhash Chander of Rs. 32,425.00 that the above payment is illegal as the petitioners had no authority to make the payment to Surinder Kumar and Subhash Chander that Gurd
