This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been

filed against order dated 19.01.2021 passed by Registrar, Cooperative

Societies, M.P. by which Registrar, Cooperative Societies has directed

for initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner.

It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Deputy Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Chattarpur by its letter dated 03.12.2019 had

directed the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank

Maryadit, Chattarpur to initiate proceedings under the service rules as

well as for registration of criminal case. It was further directed to lodge

a dispute under Section 64 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act as well as

for attachment of property of petitioner under Section 68 of M.P.

Cooperative Societies Act.

It is the case of petitioner that aforesaid order was challenged by

petitioner by filing W.P. No.27915/2019 and the said writ petition was

disposed of by order dated 19.12.2019 with liberty to approach the

Registrar by filing an appeal. It was further directed that in case if any

application for grant of stay is filed, then the same shall also be

entertained by Registrar. It was further observed that in case if the

appeal is filed within a period of 10 days from the date of order, till then

3 W.P.No.3348/2021

no action shall be taken against him. Accordingly, petitioner preferred

an appeal on 28.12.2019 and the Registrar decided the stay application

after two months and rejected the same on the ground of non-

maintainability of appeal. Again petitioner filed W.P. No.6805/2020

which was disposed of by order dated 19.03.2020 and order dated

19.12.2019 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the

Registrar for fresh adjudication of application on merits, till then they

were restrained from taking coercive action against petitioner. Now by

order dated 19.01.2021 the Registrar has allowed the appeal on the

ground of competency and has directed the Deputy Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Chattarpur to issue instructions to the society to

take departmental action as well as to take criminal action against

petitioner.

4.

Challenging the order dated 19.01.2021, it is submitted by Shri

Tripathi that petitioner is aggrieved by direction to initiate criminal

action against him. It is submitted that no opportunity of hearing was

given to petitioner before issuing such a direction. It is further submitted

that if any FIR is lodged on the instructions of the Deputy Registrar,

then it would be by an incompetent authority. Furthermore, Section 64

of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act provides for an

efficacious mode of recovery of losses sustained by society and under

these circumstances, registration of FIR is not warranted.

Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It

is submitted that anybody can put the criminal agency in motion and

unless and until it is specifically provided under the Act that FIR shall

be lodged by an officer not below a particular rank, the locus of

complainant cannot be looked into.

6.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

4 W.P.No.3348/2021

Whether the suspect has a right of pre-audience

7.

The Supreme Court in the case of Romila Thapar and others v.

Union of India and others, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 has held as

under:

“24. Turning to the first point, we are of the

considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra.

In Narmada

Bai v. State

of

Gujarat [Narmada

Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 2 SCC

(Cri) 526] , in para 64, this Court restated that it is trite

law that the accused persons do not have a say in the

matter of appointment of investigating agency. Further,

the accused persons cannot choose as to which

investigating agency must investigate the offence

committed by them.