Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1002 (AP)

V. Bala Kotaiah v. State of A. P.

2006-08-22

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2006
JUDGMENT : G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— This Criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 53 of 2005 on the file of the II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. At the instance of third respondent, a crime was registered against A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 201 I.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet. It is specifically averred that the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 1,30,000/- vide cheques bearing Nos. 96455 and 96456, dated 28-02-2004 and 08-05-2004 respectively, upon which all the three accused signed from the S.B. Account No. 19373 of Andhra Bank, Dabagardens branch, Visakhapatnam and misappropriated the association amount of Es. 1,95,000/- for their personal gain. Later, they could not account for the same apart from the other amounts taken by them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that whenever there is any allegation of misappropriation, the matter has to be referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Registrar has to make an enquiry and give a finding whether there is any truth in a the allegation and the complainant cannot directly approach the police for prosecution without referring the mater to the Register of Co-operative Societies. 4. In support of his contenting, the learned counsel, relief on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Salauddin Owaisi v. State, D.S.P., C.I.D., S.D.T., Hyderabad, 2000 (2) ALT (Crl.) 184 (D.B.) (A.P.). wherein it was held as follows: “When any dispute touching the constitution, Management or the business of the society arises, the same has to be referred to the Registrar for his decision and his decision shall be final. Unless strong reasons are made out for launching criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 initiation of prosecution under the provisions of IPC cannot be resorted to. As discussed by them elaborately in the foregoing paragraphs, the allegations made against each petitioner in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the main offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-BIPC.” 5. As discussed by them elaborately in the foregoing paragraphs, the allegations made against each petitioner in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the main offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-BIPC.” 5. But in the present case, there is a specific allegation against the petitioners by giving the facts and figures regarding withdrawal of the amount and the failure of the petitioners to account for the same. However, it is an individual act attributed to the petitioners but not the act touching upon the management and business of the society, therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. As the allegations made by the complainant are very clear and as the police also during the investigation find that there is prima facie material against the petitioners, I do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to place whatever material is available to show that they did not misappropriate the amounts and defend themselves in the criminal case.