P. C. GHOSE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the petitioner inter alia for the following prayers:- (A)a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents concerned particularly respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 to recall rescind and/or set aside the impugned complaint dated 12th January, 1999 being annexure "f" hereto forthwith and further direcitng each of them to porceed in accordance with law; (B)a writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents concerned particularly the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from giving any effect of the said complaint against the petitioners forthwith; (C)a writ and/or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and produce all relevant records relating to the case so that on perusal thereof conscionable justice may be rendered by quashing the impugned complaint dated 12th January, 1999 being annexure "f" hereto; (D)an order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect to and/or further effect to the impugned complaint dated 12th January, 1999 and further taking any steps in furtherance of the said complaint and further directing the police authorities not to take any step against the petitioners in connection with the said complaint being annexure "f" hereto till disposal of the rule. The brief facts of this case are as follows:-the petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman and the petitioner No. 2 is the Vice-Chairman of the Bankura District Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank ). ( 2 ) ON 9th December, 1996 the election of the Committee of the Bank was held, in accordance with law. The said Bank was running under loss and gradually the position of the Bank has been improved. According to the petitioner, he took charge in the financial year 1991-92 and the position has been gradually improved thereafter. The apex body of the Bank is satisfied with the functioning of the present bank. ( 3 ) ON 30th October, 1998 the Board of Directors of the said bank was dissolved by a Notification bearing No. 3481-coop/d/3p-13/91pt. and the Board of Administrator were appointed. Thereafter, the said Notification was challenged before this court on 9th November, 1998. The apex body of the Bank is satisfied with the functioning of the present bank. ( 3 ) ON 30th October, 1998 the Board of Directors of the said bank was dissolved by a Notification bearing No. 3481-coop/d/3p-13/91pt. and the Board of Administrator were appointed. Thereafter, the said Notification was challenged before this court on 9th November, 1998. ( 4 ) HIS Lordship Prabir Kumar Samata, J. was pleased to direct that the matter would come up in the list on 23rd November, 1998 and was further pleased to direct that if the charge of the Bank has not yet been taken up by the Board of Administrator, then the same will not be taken up in the meantime. ( 5 ) ON 1st December, 1998 the said application came up for hearing. The matter was fixed for hearing after 12 weeks after giving directions by His Lordship. However, His Lordship further pleased to direct that "until further orders the Board of Administrator appointed by the impugned notification dated 30th October, 1998 will not take over the charge of the petitioner Co-operative Society if the same had not been taken over till 9th November, 1998". ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of this High Court and on 25th January, 1999 after hearing the parties, Their Lordships R. Dayal, J. and S. B. Sinha, J. were pleased to set aside the said impugned order and further quashing the said Notification dated 30th October, 1998. Thereafter, on 27th January, 1999 an emergency meeting was called and the management has taken a decision and cancelling the steps taken by the said Board of Administrators. ( 7 ) WHEN the matter was pending before this court the Board of Directors under the Chairmanship of the petitioner No. 1 decided not to disburse any loan after considering the financial position of the bank. Inspite thereof one Anupam Ghatak, Asistant Manager of the Bank disbursed several loans. The Board of Directors also found several illegalities in the work of the said Manager. In such circumstances the Board took a decision to make an enquiry in the said matter and further decided to remove the said Ghatak from the said position. Accordingly, the said Ghatak was directed to make over the books and records of the banking section to Sri J. Chowdhury which was handed over to him. In such circumstances the Board took a decision to make an enquiry in the said matter and further decided to remove the said Ghatak from the said position. Accordingly, the said Ghatak was directed to make over the books and records of the banking section to Sri J. Chowdhury which was handed over to him. After making the scrutiny the bank intended to take steps against that Manager but in the meantime the order of appointment of Board of Administrator was passed on 30th October, 1998. ( 8 ) ON 12th January, 1999 a complaint has been lodged by the respondent No. 6 with the local police station inter alia making several allegations against the petitioners. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the Board of Administrator after taking administrative help tried to fulfil their ill motive and in consequence thereof the said complaint was lodged against the petitioners. On scrutiny the petitioner further sumitted that it has been found that the allegations made in the said complaint are false and fabricated. But further the Board has formed a Committee of 3 members and has been directed to make details enquiry on all the loan cases in respect thereof. By a resolution the said Committee has been directed to submit their final report within two months. The petitioner further submitted that having failed to succeed in judicial proceeding the concerned respondents by help of the police have been trying to fulfil their ill motive and started harassing the petitioner and are trying to involve the petitioner in a criminal case so that the Board can be dissolved and the petitioners will be deprived from getting the benefits out of the order passed by this court. ( 10 ) MR. Panja appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the complaint lodged against the petitioner is not maintainable and it is wholly illegal, mala fide and opposed to all norms of proceedings. He further sumitted that the Executive Officer has no authority to lodge a complaint with the police in accordance with section 139 (5) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. He further submitted that in contrary to a particular mode prescribed in the statute if any complaint lodged should be declared as void and nonest. He further sumitted that the Executive Officer has no authority to lodge a complaint with the police in accordance with section 139 (5) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. He further submitted that in contrary to a particular mode prescribed in the statute if any complaint lodged should be declared as void and nonest. ( 11 ) HE further submitted that while a statute requires scrutiny to be done in a partcular manner and/or deviation therefrom is not permissible in law. In this circumstances the impugned complaint is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that under section 139 of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act the prescribed Magistrate is only competant to take cognizance of any alleged offence and therefore, the police cannot be or should not be permitted to take cognizance of the complaint dated 12th January, 1999. ( 12 ) HE further suibmitted that the complaint was lodged by the said Board of Directors on the basis of a resolution which has been lodged with the Officer-in-Charge Bankura Sadar Police Station. He drew my attention to the said complaint dated 12th January, 1999 which specifically shows that:"? The Board of Administrators of the Bank have decided to take legal steps against Sri Ghatak, Assistant Manager (Banking), Sri Ajit Kumar Chakraborty, the then Chairman and Sri Hari Madhab Goswami, the then Vice Chairman of the Bank vide its resolution No. 4 dated 8. 1. 99". ( 13 ) HE further submitted that when the Board of Administrator of the bank, who were appointed by the Notification dated 30th October, 1998 has already been quashed by the Division Bench. All the acts which have been done or the resolution passed by the said Board of Administrator have fallen through and/or of no effect since the said order and/or the Notification was illegal and has been declared by the Division Bench and as such the police authorities has no right to take any cognizence on the said FIR lodged by the said Chief Executive Officer and/or the respondents. ( 14 ) HE further submitted that the said FIR is not in accordance with section 139. Section 139 empowers therefore any complaint is to be filed before the Magistrate and not before the Officer-in-Charge and as such it is void. ( 15 ) MR. ( 14 ) HE further submitted that the said FIR is not in accordance with section 139. Section 139 empowers therefore any complaint is to be filed before the Magistrate and not before the Officer-in-Charge and as such it is void. ( 15 ) MR. Mukherjee apearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the steps which have been taken can be done and he further submitted that the police authorities has power to take cognizance of the said complaint. He also relied upon an unreported judgment being the Criminal Revision No. 1305 of 1996 (Narendra Nath Dey and Anr. v. State of W. B.) and submitted that his Lordship Surya Kumar Tiwari, J. held that the investigation cannot be quashed since there is no conflict between the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Cooperative Law. He further submitted that Chairman and Vice-Chairman cannot disown their responsibilities for the criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in respect of the fund of the Bank and he submitted that FIR lodged against the petitioner should not be quashed. ( 16 ) MR. Mishra appearing on behalf of the police authorities submitted that FIR has been lodged disclosing the criminal offences and are within the purview of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that section 139 (5) of the Co-operative Societies Act is pari-materia with section 197 of Cr. PC. On a plain reading of section 197 as also different judicial decisions it would be mainfested that the sanctioning authority in granting sanction has to apply its judicial mind. The authority cannot apply its mind unless he got materials on the basis of which he can form an opinion as to whether sanction should be granted or not. Thus it is manifestly clear that unless there is investigation and there are materials neither the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act nor the authority under section 197 of the Cr. PC can grant sanction. ( 17 ) HE further submitted that it is thus manifestly clear that investigation cannot be stopped and should be allowed to continue or else even assuming the sanction is necessary in the instant case no sanction can be granted. The sanctioning authority cannot act on thin air and it has to act on the basis of material collected through investigation. The sanctioning authority cannot act on thin air and it has to act on the basis of material collected through investigation. If police investigation is stayed no materials can be collected and as such the Registrar cannot at all give sanction. ( 18 ) MR. Panja appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to distinguish the judgment passed by His Lordship Surya Kumar Tiwari, J. on 20th September, 1996 stating that in that case a written complaint was filed in the court of CJM, Howrah and the CJM forwarded the complaint to Howrah Police Station for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. PC and as such the police registered FIR and started investigation. But in the instant case no such complaint has been lodged before the Magistrate and as such it is distinguishable from the said unreported judgment. ( 19 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of this case it appears that FIR can be lodged by any person under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code about a cognizable offence. The respondent No. 6 being the Chief Executive Officer of the bank has statutory power under Rule 52 (Clause II) of sub-rule 2 of Rule 52 of the rules. The CEO, the respondent No. 6 herein has a right to institute, defend and conduct legal proceedings. It is true that the powers of the CEO are subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the State Government. There is no such restrictions have been imposed by the State Government in the instant case on the respondent No. 6 to exercise such power. The CEO, the respondent No. 6 herein exercised its statutory power under Rule 52 and discharged statutory duties as per provisions of the Rule 53 of the said West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987. It further appears that the CEO does not function under the control of the Board of Directors and in the instant case the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Co-operative Rules, 1974 has no application in view of the amendment of the said Act which came into force on and from 1st August, 1987. The respondent No. 6 was competent to lodge complaint to the police under Rule 52 (2) (ii ). The respondent No. 6 was competent to lodge complaint to the police under Rule 52 (2) (ii ). It further appears that the complaint which has been lodged against the petitioners under section 139 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and as such that does not attract section 139 of the said Act. ( 20 ) IT further appears that the complaint which has been lodged under the Indian Penal Code by the respondent No. 6 reveals clearly the cognizable offence and as such in my opinion that cannot be quashed at this stage and as such the FIR lodged against the petitioners cannot be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held in a judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others) the circumstances under which the FIR can be quashed. I have not been able to find out such circumstances in this stage. Furthermore responsibilities of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman cannot be overlooked by this court and as such FIR lodged against the petitioners cannot be quashed. By reason of the premises as aforesaid this writ application fails, no order as to costs. Application fails.