ORDER : Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri A. R. S. Chauhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1/State. None for the respondents No. 2 to 3. Heard. 2. This petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 113/2009 registered at Police Station, Baghsewania, Bhopal. 3. The case of the applicants in brief is that the applicants are the office bearers of Kamdhenu Housing Co-operative Society, Bhopal meant for providing low cost houses and plots to its members. The Society acquired land at Baghsewania, Bhopal and is constructing a colony in the name of “Gayatri Vihar.” This Society entered into an agreement with one Amit Rathod for construction of houses on the plots of the individual members of the Society. Amit Rathod lodged a report with the police against the present applicants. The police after due investigation found no such case against the applicants. Amit Rathod then preferred a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. The learned J.M.F.C. under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed the police for a report. After due investigation, police filed a report stating that no offence has been made out as alleged. The learned J.M.F.C. after this report recorded the deposition under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed the complaint on 14-1-2009. 4. Pertaining to the same facts, Amit Rathod again lodged a report. The applicants’ Society had entered into an agreement with one B. K. Shukla, who is power of attorney holder of Amit Rathod. The society had also entered into an agreement with Shri B. K. Shukla to develop the land for the society. Apart from developing the same discharging the agreement entered by Amit Rathod was being disarranged by Shri B. K. Shukla as he was the power of attorney holder of Amit Rathod. 5. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 wanted a plot in the Society without making any payment in the name of one of his relatives. The Society refused to surrender. Shri B. K. Shukla was in a close relation with non-applicant No. 2. Report was lodged and cognizance has been taken by the police under the influence of respondent No. 2 to fulfil the ulterior purpose of Amit Rathod and B. K. Shukla. The Society refused to surrender. Shri B. K. Shukla was in a close relation with non-applicant No. 2. Report was lodged and cognizance has been taken by the police under the influence of respondent No. 2 to fulfil the ulterior purpose of Amit Rathod and B. K. Shukla. Under the influence of respondent No. 3 compelled the applicants’ Society to part with Rs. 14,00,000/-. Later respondent No. 4 also compelled the Society to do the same. 6. Police has lodged Crime No. 113/2009 only to aid Amit Rathod and B. K. Shukla to squeeze money from the Society of the applicants claiming that after disposal of the complaint case by the learned J.M.F.C. the police has no jurisdiction to act on the report. The applicants submit that no offence is made out against the applicants. Registration of F.I.R. and holding investigation on an incompetent report is an abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the matter pertains to civil dispute. Considering the allegations made in the F.I.R. as it exists, no criminal dispute persists. The allegations made are purely of civil nature and such cognizance by police cannot be permitted to be continued. It is contended that the criminal proceeding are manifestly attained with mala fide and with malicious intention with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the applicants. The payment of additional sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- and executing a subsequent agreement to pay further under the terror of S.D.O. (P), Misrod for offences alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bagh Sewania, shows the mala fide of the police and the respondents No. 2 to 4. 7. Applicant No. 11 is residing at Dubai. Even then he was being intended to prosecute so the mala fides of the police, it is claimed that if police is not restrained from acting on the said F.I.R. failure of justice will be occasioned and it will be abuse of the process of law. 8. The complainant Amit Rathode as per order 21-1-2015 has passed away, therefore, has not been impleaded as respondent. 9. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the petition and the contentions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. 10. The report submitted to the Court by S.H.O., Bagh Sewania on 8-9-2008 shows that after preliminary investigation, it is found that Amit Rathod lodged the complaint against Kamdhenu Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti. 9. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the petition and the contentions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. 10. The report submitted to the Court by S.H.O., Bagh Sewania on 8-9-2008 shows that after preliminary investigation, it is found that Amit Rathod lodged the complaint against Kamdhenu Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti. It was a dispute with regard to agreement dated 14-11-2005. In the report it is stated that there was a business transaction between Kamdhenu Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti and Max Worth Housing Society. It is not established that the members of Kamdhenu Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti tried to misappropriate the amount deposited with them. However, the same has been found to be returned to the members as per the Banks statements. 11. Learned J.M.F.C., Bhopal in the unregistered Criminal Case No. --/08 (Amit Rathod vs. Sunil Gaud and others), passed order on 14-1-2009. Learned J.M.F.C. held that prima facie, no offence is made out under sections 420, 419, 477 (a), 482, 448, 294, 506, Indian Penal Code and dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code. 12. F.I.R. was lodged on 8-3-2009 at Police Station Bagh Sewania by Amit Rathod under sections 420, 406, 341, 506/34 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. This report has been lodged at the instance of Amit Rathod by filing a written complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal as Crime No. 113/2009. 13. On perusal of the above documents support the contentions of applicants, the respondents filed a short reply and claimed that an agreement was entered between the complainant Amit Rathod and the petitioners for allotment of land and the petitioners received Rs. 1,01,02,784/- and when he demanded the land/plot, the petitioners refused to give the plot. The petitioners threatened to kill him and his family members. After inquiry, charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have no relationship with the complainant and there is no influence as alleged by the applicants. The agreement was entered in 2008 by mutual consent. The allegations of the applicants are frivolous and liable to be rejected. It is not a case where extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised. 14. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The agreement was entered in 2008 by mutual consent. The allegations of the applicants are frivolous and liable to be rejected. It is not a case where extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised. 14. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this context it would be pertinent to reproduce the provisions of section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which reads as follows :— “64. Disputes. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following :— (a) a society, its Board of Directors, any past Board of Directors, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society; (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of a society or of a society which is a member of the society; (c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person; (d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; (e) any other society or the liquidator of such a society, and (f) a creditor of a society. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a dispute shall include — (i) a claim by a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (ii) a claim by a surety against the principle debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, any officer, past officer or deceased officer, any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or any servant, past servant or deceased servant or its Board of Directors, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not; (iv) a question regarding rights, etc. including tenancy rights between a housing society and its tenants or members; and (v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society : Provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the results. (3) If any question arising whether a dispute referred to the Registrar is a dispute, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.” 15. Amit Rathod had made an agreement with the Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti (Society) on 29-7-2008. Therefore, the Max Worth Housing Builders had entered into an agreement which squarely falls under the category of section 64(1)(c) and is a business transaction. 16. If the applicants are office bearers of the Society, does any act or guilty of omission as declared by the Rules, to be an offence, it falls under section 74(k) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The penalty for which is provided under section 75 of the Act, 1960. 17. Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provides that :— “76. Cognizance of offences. — (1) No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act. The penalty for which is provided under section 75 of the Act, 1960. 17. Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provides that :— “76. Cognizance of offences. — (1) No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act. (2) No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar and such sanction shall not be given without giving to the person concerned an opportunity to represent his case.” 18. Therefore, without the returned sanction in writing of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under sub-section (2) of section 76 of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, no Court of J.M.F.C. can take cognizance. It is a principal requisite that sanction in writing of the Registrar to institute a transaction against the member or office bearers of the Society. 19. In this regard the earlier judgments rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in Avdesh Raghuvanshi vs. State of M.P decided on 1-3-2013 in M.Cr.C. No. 2356/2013 reported as I.L.R (2013) M.P. 1227, this Court has held that :— “B. Co-operative Societies Act, M.P. 1960 (17 of 1961) Sections 72, 74 & 76, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 5 — Cancellation of Plot — Maintainability of Complaint — Complainant was allotted plot by the society, however, the allotment was cancelled as he had not deposited the maintenance charges, Bhoo Bhatak and further did not complete the registration process — Complainant did not remove deficiencies in spite of repeated notices issued to him — Held — Dispute regarding allotment or cancellation of plot is punishable under sections 72, 74 of Act and cognizance can be taken only on a sanction given by Registrar under section 76 — Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code not applicable (Paras 11 & 12).” 20. In the case of M. L. Gaur and others vs. State of M. P. decided on 16-5-2014 in M.Cr.C. No. 14466/2013 [2014(2) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 63], this Court has quashed the proceeding of Crime No. 24/2010 lodged at Police Station Bagh Sewaniya and consequential proceeding was directed to be dropped on the ground that prima facie no offence under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code is made out. 21. 21. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported as (1992 AIR SCW 237) to show the grounds when the power of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked. The relevant grounds laid in the case are as under :— “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (3)..... (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code.” 22. In the light of the aforesaid, it is held that as regarding the F.I.R. lodged by Amit Rathod for offences under sections 420, 406, 341, 506/34 and 294 of Indian Penal Code, prima facie, no offence is made out, for there were earlier findings recorded in report dated 8-9-2008 and order dated 14-1-2009 coupled with the fact that no sanction has been accorded by the Registrar Co-operative Societies for proceeding against the applicants, office bearers of the Society. 23. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R. at Crime No. 113/2009 and subsequent proceedings against the applicants in R.T. No. 13889/2009 is quashed. 24. Before parting with the case, it is observed that the Housing Society or any member of the Housing Society or anyone having transaction with the society if felt aggrieved may file complaint after obtaining necessary sanction under sub-section (2) of section 75 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.