Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 85
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. S. CHAUHAN, J.
Arvind Kumar Bhargava and Ors.
Versus
Lalit Parashar and Anr.
M. Cr. C. No. 1795 of 2005
Decided on : 18-1-2008.
Harpreet Ruprah, for Petitioners; A. K. Pare, for Respondents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the concept of 'good faith' in determining the entitlement to protection under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999.
Headnote:
Section 482 - M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999 - 50(2) - 294, 452, 392, 500, 506/34 of I. P. C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 190 and 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999. The court analyzed the concept of 'good faith' and its application in the case, ultimately influencing the decision to dismiss the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were public servants, were accused of seizing property and using abusive language while attempting to recover a loan. They filed multiple applications under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999, which were dismissed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not act in good faith and therefore were not entitled to the protection of Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999. The trial court's decision to take cognizance against them and dismiss their applications was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applications under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999 and in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the provisions of Section 190 and 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999, and interpreted the concept of 'good faith' as per the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 52 of I. P. C. The finding that the petitioners did not act in good faith influenced the final decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision to take cognizance against the petitioners and dismiss their applications under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999.
2. The facts of the petition are that the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Manager, Recovery Officer (retired) and Supervisor of Bhumi Vikas Bank, Kareli, District Narsinghpur. At the relevant time, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 were posted at Kareli whereas the applicant No. 2 was posted at Narsinghpur. In the year 2000, there was immense pressure from the Chairman and Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Collector for initiating recovery proceedings in all the cases pending under Sections 23 and 26 of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank, Adhiniyam, 1999. One letter was written on 9-5-2000 by Commissioner, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal to Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies informing that within 30 days from the receipt of the letter all the legal cases pending in the Bank should be completed. In pursuance of this letter the Registrar-Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh vide his letter dated 24-11-2000 appointed various public servants of the Bank to act as a Sales Officer under the provisions of Section 35 of Adhiniyam, 1999. In delegation of the powers, Manager of Jila Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Narsinghpur, in the month of June 2000 constituted a team to go to Kareli for the recoveries. This fact is clear from the certificate given by the Manager on 8-9-2004 that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Sumanlata Parashar took a loan to purchase a tractor from the Bank. She could not pay the installments, therefore, the notices were given to her in spite of she did not pay an amount of Rs. 18,730/-. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 15 of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 (of the old Act) a distraint order dated 1-6-2000 was issued against her. In furtherance of this distraint order, the Sales Officers also issued last warning to her either to pay the amount of Rs. 19,292/- or to face the distraint proceedings. Thereafter the applicants went to the house of respondent No. 2 and asked to deposit the amount due but the respondents refused to pay and threatened them for dire consequences. The members of the team gave warning to them not to interfere with the confiscation proceedings. After following the procedure they seized a sofa set from the verandah of the house of the respondents on 28-6-2000. Village Kotwar duly signed the seizure memo. Information regarding the seizure of the property was also given to Station House Officer, Aamgaon on the same date. The respondents became annoyed by the action taken by the petitioners. They made the false complaint to police and to Collector, Narsinghpur which were found false. They also raised the dispute under Section 64 of the Societies Act, 1960 which was dismissed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide order dated 4-12-2000 the appeal was also dismissed on 5-12-2000 then they lodged a criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara under Sections 294, 452, 392, 500 and 506/34 of the IPC. A criminal case was registered against them on 14-12-2000 and notices were issued. Upon receiving the same, the petitioners moved an application under Section 197, Cr. P. C. as well as under Section 50(2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999 praying that they being public servants cannot be prosecuted unless prior sanction is obtained from the Government. This application was dismissed on 5-3-2001. The petitioners preferred a revision against this order but the
