Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2149 (BOM)

Sureshchandra v. State of Maharashtra

2014-10-10

M.T.JOSHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : M.T. Joshi, J. 1. Heard both sides. Present petitioners were the Managing Committee Members/Directors of the credit cooperative society. The said cooperative society was superseded and the complainant was appointed as an administrator. After he took over the charge, he filed the impugned complaint. He alleged in the complaint that the present petitioners were the Directors/Managing Committee Members of the cooperative society. During the relevant period they had advanced loan against the hypothecation of the stock in the month of March, 2000 to the relatives of one of the members, however, not a single farthing was refunded, still no action was taken. Ultimately, on 17.11.2001, the administrator caused the inspection of the godowns wherein the hypothecated goods was supposed to be kept. It was found that the godowns were empty. According to the Rules and Regulations, the key of the godowns would remain with the cooperative society or its representatives, however, even after inquiry the keys were not produced, and therefore, the first information report came to be filed against the borrowers. During the course of the investigation, investigating officer has also joined the present petitioners Managing Committee Members/Directors, as accused. 2. Mr. Hon, learned counsel submits that the present Writ petitioners as the Managing Committee Members of the society have earlier merely sanctioned the loan to the family members/relatives of one G.N. Agrawal i.e. one of the Member of the cooperative society. Thereafter if later on during the period of the administrator it was found that the hypothecated goods are lost, then it cannot be said that the offence is committed by the present petitioners, but at the most by the persons to whom loan was advanced. Mr. Hon, learned counsel relies on the ratio of a reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani [1998 AIR (SC) 2796]. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations in the first information report would show that despite grant of loan for an amount of Rs. 50 Lacs and odd and not a single farthing was repaid during the tenure of the petitioners as the Managing Committee Members, no action was taken. Even no care was taken for having the key of the godowns wherein the goods were supposed to be kept after hypothecation. 50 Lacs and odd and not a single farthing was repaid during the tenure of the petitioners as the Managing Committee Members, no action was taken. Even no care was taken for having the key of the godowns wherein the goods were supposed to be kept after hypothecation. It was, therefore, submitted that the role played by the present petitioners would be a matter of investigation and at this stage if the crime itself is quashed, then the role of the present petitioners would not at all be investigated. 4. Perused the ratio in the case of Ashok Chaturvedi (cited supra). In that case, finding vague and bald allegations in the private complaint and certain improvements in the statement of the complainant, it was observed that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where allegations in the complaint do not make out any offence, would tantamount to abuse of process of the court. In the present case, however, the administrator was cautious enough in merely stating the fact and not making any allegations. Prima facie, it appears that during the tenure of the present applicants as the Managing Committee Members though loan was advanced to the relatives of Govind Agrawal for Rs. 50 Lacs in the year 2000, and thereafter though none of the relatives paid a single farthing, the present petitioners during their tenure did not take any action nor they took any precaution of seeking the custody of the key of the concerned godowns. In that view of the matter, without making any further comments on the merits of the case, as the investigation would be required, in my view, it is not a fit case for quashing the crime. In the circumstances following order. "(i) Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. (ii) Rule is hereby discharged. (iii) Interim protection granted earlier stands vacated. (iv) At this stage, Mr. Hon, learned counsel submits that interim protection may be continued for some more period. However, taking into consideration all the facts, in my view, this is not a fit case for continuation of the interim protection. Request, therefore, is rejected."