Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, Rule was made returnable forthwith. 2. In the course of final hearing on 1 October 2014, Ms Meena Pomal – respondent no. 4, who appears in person urged that this petition be dismissed in limine, inter alia on the following grounds :- (A) That the petitioners have made several misstatements of facts with regard to their having furnished certain documents to respondent no. 4; (B) That extension of interim relief was obtained on 22 August 2014 without disclosing to the court that there was no order extending the interim relief made on 4 July 2014. 3. In so far as the first objection is concerned, the same can by no means be regarded to be 'preliminary'. This is because the entire dispute in the present petition concerns the non furnish of certain documents by the petitioners to respondent no. 4, despite orders for furnish, thereby prompting the respondent no. 1 to grant a sanction under Section 148 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (said Act) for prosecution of the petitioners. This issue shall therefore have to be taken up whilst considering whether the impugned order dated 20 November 2012 granting sanction as aforesaid was validly made. 4. In so far as the second preliminary objection is concerned, it is to be noted that ad interim relief was granted way back on 24 April 2013, which was continued with substantial regularity at least upto 13 June 2014. On 4 July 2014, respondent no. 4 stated that the copy of the reply to the statement filed by the petitioners had been served upon the society, however the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners stated that such copy had not been given to him. Thereupon, this Court recorded respondent no. 4's statement that the copy would be furnished to the learned Senior Advocate in the course of the day and the matter was adjourned to 18 July 2014. There is no record of the ad interim order granted earlier to continue. 5. Thereafter, on 22 August 2014, when the matter was called out, respondent no. 4 was not present. However the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners pointed out that respondent no. 4 normally appears in person and thereafter with a view to afford opportunity to respondent no. 4, the matter was stood over to 5 September 2014. 5. Thereafter, on 22 August 2014, when the matter was called out, respondent no. 4 was not present. However the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners pointed out that respondent no. 4 normally appears in person and thereafter with a view to afford opportunity to respondent no. 4, the matter was stood over to 5 September 2014. It was directed that the interim order granted earlier was to continue till the next date. 6. Now, if the sequence of events is perused, it is obvious that on account of some confusion with regard to the receipt of copy of respondent no. 4's reply, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner failed to make mention to this Court about extension of ad interim relief which had been in operation since 24 April 2013. Perhaps, being unaware of such inadvertent omission, motion was made on 22 August 2014 for the continuance of interim order, granted earlier. By no stretch can this be ascribed as some misleading statement, warranting dismissal of the petition in limine. 7. As noted earlier, the challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20 November 2012 made by the Divisional Joint Registrar (respondent no. 1) granting sanction under Section 148 of the said Act against petitioner no. 1 for purported offences under Section 146(i) and 146(j) of the said Act. 8. Shorne of several irrelevancies, the facts and circumstances in which the impugned order came to be made is that respondent no. 4's husband by her application dated 14 January 2003 applied to petitioner no. 2 society for furnish of certain documents, to which reference shall be made hereafter. This was followed by letters dated 22 September 2003 and 29 January 2004, reiterating the demand for furnish of the documents. By order dated 5 March 2004, the Deputy Registrar directed petitioner no. 2 society to furnish the said documents. It is the case of the petitioners that they, under the cover of their lawyer's letter dated 19 July 2005, furnished the necessary documents as were directed. Further in the letter dated 11 October 2005 addressed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the Divisional Registrar there is a record that the documents had indeed been furnished to respondent no. 4. 9. Sometime in the year 2005, respondent no. 4 lodged application no. Further in the letter dated 11 October 2005 addressed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the Divisional Registrar there is a record that the documents had indeed been furnished to respondent no. 4. 9. Sometime in the year 2005, respondent no. 4 lodged application no. 6 of 2005 before the Divisional Joint Registrar under Sections 146 and 147 of the said Act seeking sanction under Section 148 of the said Act to prosecute the petitioners for having failed to comply with the order dated 5 March 2004 made by the Deputy Registrar under Section 79(1) and (2) of the said Act. 10. For considerable length of time, the aforesaid application of respondent no. 4 was not disposed of. Ultimately by order dated 24 September 2012 in criminal writ petition no. 3136 of 2012 instituted by respondent no. 4, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to dispose of application no. 6 of 2005. The Divisional Joint Registrar, by the impugned order has granted sanction under Section 148 of the said Act for prosecution of petitioner no. 1 for purported offences under Section 146(i) and (j) of the said Act. 11. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar, in making the impugned order, failed to take into consideration the communication dated 11 October 2005 addressed by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, in which it is clearly recorded that the necessary documents had indeed been furnished to respondent no. 4. The communications dated 3 February 2005 and the roznama entries dated 18 March 2004 and 17 June 2004, which were prior to issue of communication dated 11 October 2005, could therefore never have been relied upon in order to grant sanction for prosecution of petitioner no. 1. Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that time and again the necessary documents were furnished to respondent no. 4 and in case there was any deficiency, time and again said deficiency was offered to be remedied. Respondent no. 4, on the other hand, was never genuinely interested in receipt of the documents, but was merely interested in prosecuting the members of the managing committee, in order to deter them from recovering dues which the respondent no. 4 was liable to pay to the society. Finally, Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that even in this Court, the petitioners offered to furnish documents to respondent no. 4 was liable to pay to the society. Finally, Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that even in this Court, the petitioners offered to furnish documents to respondent no. 4, who maintained that prosecution of petitioner no. 1 was the only imperative and furnish of documents cannot wipe out the offences already committed by the members of the managing committee. Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that if the members of the managing committee of societies are called upon to face prosecution for such frivolous reasons, there is danger that the cooperative movement shall itself collapse, as no members will come forward to accept positions with the managing committee. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 12. Ms Pomal - respondent no. 4 who appeared in person submitted that all the documents as directed by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 5 March 2004 were never furnished either to her husband or herself. This, she stated, was evident from the communication dated 3 February 2005 addressed by the Deputy Registrar to the Divisional Joint Registrar. Besides, the factum of non supply of copies of documents was recorded in the roznama dated 18 March 2004 and 17 June 2004 in revision application no. 581 of 2002. The supply of documents or rather the offer to supply documents at a later stage, does not mitigate the offences committed by the petitioners. Accordingly, Ms Pomal submitted that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Rival contentions now fall for my determination. 14. The communication dated 11 October 2005 addressed by the Deputy Registrar to the Divisional Joint Registrar very categorically records that the documents referred to therein were furnished or rather offered to be furnished to respondent no.4 but respondent no.4 returned the same and from her conduct it could be concluded that she had purposely refused to take the same. The communication dated 11 October 2005, being significant is quoted verbatim : “Outward No. 2357/Dy.Reg/A-W/B-2/Jayant Mahal/Pomal/05 Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, A- Ward, Mumbai, Malhotra House, 6th floor, Opposite GPO Mumbai 400 001 Dated 11/10/2005 To, Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Sub : Jayant Mahal Housing Societies, Marine Drive, Mumbai 400020 Ref: Your letter dated 31/05.2005/Visni/Mumbai/Appeal 2492/RA/581/02/2005 With reference to the above subject. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, A- Ward, Mumbai, Malhotra House, 6th floor, Opposite GPO Mumbai 400 001 Dated 11/10/2005 To, Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Sub : Jayant Mahal Housing Societies, Marine Drive, Mumbai 400020 Ref: Your letter dated 31/05.2005/Visni/Mumbai/Appeal 2492/RA/581/02/2005 With reference to the above subject. With reference to your above letter we had called for hearing on 19.07.2005, 26-07-2005, 01-8-2005, 09-08-2005, 23-08-2005, 29.08.2005 and 13-09-2005. On 19-07-2005 by Society letter, Society submitted the following documents to Ms. Pomal. 1. Copy of Reply by Opponent No. 1 in Revision Application No. 581/2002 dated 19th May 2002. 2. Copy of letter dated 21-05-2002 from Society's Advocate Mr. Gabriel Pillai to Mrs. Pomal. 3. Xerox copy of Approval Bye-laws. 4. Copy of Resolution of Committee Members dated 4th January 2002 to file the Application under Section 101. 5. Copy of Registration Certificate. 6. Copy of Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 21st April 2002 with present members signature. 7. Copy of Minutes of the Meeting of the AGM held on 12th August 2001 with Registered copy of present members. 8. Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the AGM held on 11th August 2002 with Registered copy of present members. 9. Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the AGM held on 10th August 2003 with Registered copy of present members. 10. Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Special General Meeting held on 21st March 2004 with Registered copy of present members. 11. Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Special General Meeting held on 25th April 2004 with Registered copy of present members. 12. Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the General Meeting held on 13th August 2005 with Registered copy of present members. 13. Copies of the Indemnity Bond, which was taken on Stamp Papers, dated 10th May 2005. 14. Copy of Society's Certificate stating the status of ownership with respect of Flat No.20. 15. Copies of society's Reply in Revision, which filed before you. All documents (Certified Copies) from Society were given to Ms. Pomal but she returned all the Certified Copies stating in her / his letter dated 30.08.2005 that these documents were not proper. On 16-08-2005 in the hearing Ms. Pomal stated that by her letter dated 14.01.2003 in Para No. E-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others documents were not received from Society. Pomal but she returned all the Certified Copies stating in her / his letter dated 30.08.2005 that these documents were not proper. On 16-08-2005 in the hearing Ms. Pomal stated that by her letter dated 14.01.2003 in Para No. E-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others documents were not received from Society. Accordingly this office directed the Society to give her the documents she wanted. Accordingly all Certified Copies were made by Society and given to Ms. Pomal, but again she returned all documents stating that the documents were not proper by her letter dated 30/08/2005 (Enclosed herewith copy for your information). On 16-08-2005 in the hearing Ms. Pomal stated that by her letter dated 14.01.2003 in their Para No. E-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others documents not received from societies. According that society given order to produce that documents. Accordingly on 23rd August 2005 at time hearing we had gone through the documents asked by her letter 14-01-2003 in Para no. 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 related paper should be given to her was informed to Societies. Next hearing was fixed 13/09/2005. In the hearing of 13-09-2005 the Society stated that according para wise all documents were already given to them (Applicant) from time to time on hearing. Para No. 2. - Application dated 22-12-2002 filed before Divisional Joint Registrar. Para No. 4 – Minutes Book related to Society. Para No. 8 – copy of Order dated 23-07-2002 from Dy. Registrar to the Society to according that Minutes of meeting of General Meeting held on 11.08.2003. Para No. 11 – Proceeding Relation Recover Application filed under 101, Bye-laws Copy and Resolution and Application and Revision Application 581/2002 related documents. Para No. 12 – Reply of Society to Dy. Registrar's Letter dated 22.03.2002. Para No. 13 – Reply of the Society to Applicant letter dated 10.08.2002 regarding dues. Para No. 14 – Document related to Flat No. 20. In above paras the documents are related to U/s. 101 Proceeding are all documents already submit to by Society to Applicant. But Para No. 2 and 12 related documents the Society has not submitted. On the 30/08/2005 Mrs. Pomal returned all the documents whichever she received from society in this Office. So on her conduct it can be concluded that she has purposely refused to take the Documents. This is for your information. Sd/- Dy. But Para No. 2 and 12 related documents the Society has not submitted. On the 30/08/2005 Mrs. Pomal returned all the documents whichever she received from society in this Office. So on her conduct it can be concluded that she has purposely refused to take the Documents. This is for your information. Sd/- Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, A Ward, Mumbai C.C. 1. Mrs. H. M. Pomal 2. Chairman/ Secretary, Jayant Mahal Co-op. Hsg. Ltd. Sd/- Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, A Ward, Mumbai” [Emphasis supplied] 15. The aforesaid communication does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the Divisional Joint Registrar in making the impugned order dated 20 November 2012. Instead, the Divisional Joint Registrar has made reference to the communication dated 3 February 2005 (though not by date). Further the Divisional Joint Registrar has noted roznama entries dated 18 March 2004 and 17 June 2004 in revision application no. 581 of 2002. The said roznama entries can hardly be said to be relevant, particularly since the allegation pertains to the alleged non compliance with directions contained in the order dated 5 March 2004 and the communication dated 11 October 2005 records that attempts were indeed made by the petitioners to furnish the documents to respondent no. 4 who purposely refused to accept the same. 16. From the perusal of the list of the documents, it is clear that most of the documents were in the public domain and it was easily possible for respondent no. 4 to obtain the same from respective authorities before whom they may have been lodged by the petitioners. The documents do not appear to be of such nature as would afford any particular advantage to the petitioners, by way of not furnish of the same to respondent no. 4. But in any case, even before this Court, without prejudice, the petitioners offered the copies of the documents to respondent no. 4. For this purpose, under the orders of this Court, charts were prepared, so that the controversy regards non receipt of documents is narrowed to the minimum. However, it does appear that respondent no. 4 was interested less in the documents and more in prosecution of petitioner no. 1, for having failed to allegedly supply such documents, almost a decade ago. If circumstances are considered, then I do find merit in the submission of Mr. However, it does appear that respondent no. 4 was interested less in the documents and more in prosecution of petitioner no. 1, for having failed to allegedly supply such documents, almost a decade ago. If circumstances are considered, then I do find merit in the submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni that this was not a case where sanction under Section 148 of the said Act should have been granted in order to launch a criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 17. Ultimately it is to be noted that the purpose for making a provision under Section 148(3) of the said Act that no prosecution under this Act shall be lodged, except with the previous sanction of the Registrar is precisely to prevent prosecution upon trivial or frivolous or hyper technical grounds. Even assuming that there was some delay or dispute in the matter of furnish of documents in pursuance of directions made by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 5 March 2004, that by itself cannot be a ground for sanctioning prosecution of the managing committee members for having committed offences under Sections 146(i) and 146(j) of the said Act. In this case, it cannot be said that there was any willful neglect or refusal on the part of the members of the managing committee to furnish any information or any non compliance of the orders made under Section 79 of the said Act without reasonable excuse. At the stage of grant of sanction, the sanctioning authority not only has to satisfy itself as to whether there is any prima facie commission of offence but further whether prosecution is at all warranted upon consideration of totality of facts and circumstances. 18. The policy of Legislature, in enacting a provision like Section 148 of the said Act is to confer adequate protection, inter alia to the members of the managing committees and to ensure that they are not prosecuted for acts done by them in the discharge of their duties as members of the managing committee, without there being any reasonable cause. The object of such provision is to protect, inter alia the members of the managing committees from frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their duties as members. The object of such provision is to protect, inter alia the members of the managing committees from frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their duties as members. The larger interest of the efficiency of the cooperative movement demands that members of managing committees, who have been democratically elected from amongst the members of the society, should be free to perform their duties fearlessly and undeterred by any apprehension of their possible prosecution at the instance of parties to whom annoyance or injury may have been caused by their legitimate acts done in the discharge of their duties. This section has been enacted to facilitate an effective and unhampered performance of their duties, providing for scrutiny into the allegations of commission of offence by them by the Registrar and a prior sanction for their prosecution as a condition precedent to the cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. Such a provision therefore, can neither be construed too narrowly nor too widely. Too narrow and pendentic construction may render it otiose, whereas too wide construction may enable members, who out of malice, malafides or with dishonest intentions have committed offences which ultimately affect not just the members of the co-operative society, but also a co-operative movement in general. 19. Therefore, if the totality of the facts and circumstances as obtain in the present case, are taken into consideration then the impugned order dated 20 November 2012 sanctioning prosecution against petitioner no. 1, is untenable. The allegation is in the context of alleged non furnish of documents to respondent no. 4 in pursuance of Deputy Registrar's Order dated 5 March 2004. The material on record suggests that the documents were furnished or at least most of the documents were furnished. Besides, time and again offers were made to furnish such of the documents, which respondent no. 4 contended, were not furnished. There are reports emanating from the Deputy Registrar himself, which record that the documents were furnished from time to time but returned by respondent no. 4. The communication dated 11 October 2005 records that from the conduct of respondent no. 4 it can be concluded that she has purposely refused to take the documents. 4 contended, were not furnished. There are reports emanating from the Deputy Registrar himself, which record that the documents were furnished from time to time but returned by respondent no. 4. The communication dated 11 October 2005 records that from the conduct of respondent no. 4 it can be concluded that she has purposely refused to take the documents. If all such material is taken into consideration, then it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offences under Sections 146(i) and 146(j) of the said Act. Any prosecution of the petitioners under such circumstances, would constitute an abuse of the process. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20 November 2012 deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 20. Respondent No. 4, in support of the preliminary objection raised by her has also filed civil application no. 2300 of 2014, urging inter alia action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191, 192, 193 of the I.P.C. In the civil application, it is the case of respondent no. 4 that the petitioners have made several misstatements of fact. Perusal of the civil application, the affidavit in support thereof and the documents accompanying the same would indicate that the grievance of respondent no. 4 is in the context of alleged non furnish of documents to her. As noted earlier, there is no merit in such grievance. Therefore, this is not a case which warrants any action in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The civil application no. 2300 of 2014, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 21. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. Civil application no. 2300 of 2014 is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.