JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Application is filed with following prayer clauses: (B) The F.I.R. bearing No. 16 of 2012 dated 15.06.2012 registered at Police Station Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad may kindly be quashed and set aside. (B1) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appreciate writ, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR no. 16/12 Dated 15.6.12 & Charge sheet No.11/2014 dated 23/05/2014 under section 3 & Section 10 (A) of essential commodities act registered at police Station Washi Dist. Osmanabad may kindly quashed & set aside. (C) It may be hold and declared that, registration of offence under section 7 & 10 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and section 3 (3A) 3 (8) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 without exercising powers of recovery as provided in Section 3 sub section 1 to 14 is unwarranted and hence may kindly be quashed and set aside. 4. It is the case of the applicants that the applicants are the elected Directors of Nursinha Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Indapur, Taluka Washi, District Osmanabad. The said sugar factory is governed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules, 1961. The said sugar factory is registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Commissioner of Sugar is the Controlling Authority of the Sugar factory, who is registered under the said Act. 5. It is further the case of the applicants that during the crushing season 2011-12, there was availability of the less quantity of sugar cane vis-a-vis crushing capacity of the sugar factory. Therefore, sugar factory has crushed only 55404 M.T. sugarcane and was able to produce 53698 sugar bags. Since the sugar factory was facing financial crisis, it was difficult for the sugar factory to make regular payment of the sugarcane grower, who supplied the sugarcane. In the said financial crisis, the Government did not extend financial assistance to the said sugar factory. However, the sugar factory made sincere efforts to make regular payment of the sugarcane growers. There were dues of the provident fund, and therefore, in view of the statutory obligations to pay said dues on priority basis, the sugar factory made payment of provident fund during the said period. However, the sugar factory made sincere efforts to make regular payment of the sugarcane growers. There were dues of the provident fund, and therefore, in view of the statutory obligations to pay said dues on priority basis, the sugar factory made payment of provident fund during the said period. The sugar factory paid Rs.1.09 lacs towards dues of contribution to the provident fund of the employees. It is further the case of the applicants that the sugar factory was able to make payment more than Rs.6 crores to the sugarcane grower, however, it could not arrange for payment of the sugarcane growers to the tune of Rs.2.25 crores at the relevant time. At the relevant time, Excise Department did seize and attach the sugarcane stock and molasses so as to meet expenditure. 6. Some of the sugarcane growers who supplied sugarcane to the sugar factory made a complaint to the respondent no.2 i.e. Regional Director of Sugar for non payment of sugarcane price by the sugar factory. The respondent authorities without hearing the representatives of the sugar factory passed an order on 7th June, 2012 and authorised respondent no.3 Special Auditor, Cooperative Societies [Sugar], Osmanabad to lodge the criminal case against the applicants under Sections 7 and 10 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act r/w. Section 3A and 3 (8) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. Respondent no.3 Special Auditor lodged a written complaint on 15th June, 2012 to the Police Inspector, Police Station, Washi and requested him to register the offences against the applicants under Section 7 and 10 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Police Inspector, Police Station, Washi, registered Crime No.16/2012 under Section 7, 10 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w. (3A) and 3 (8) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. 7. The applicants filed Criminal Writ Petition No.528/2012 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the decision of the Director of Sugar to lodge criminal complaint against them. The Division Bench of the High Court heard the Petition, and observed that the decision of the Director of Sugar, to lodge criminal complaint, though, has an effect of direction to subordinate to setting criminal law in motion, it is decision taken by the executive. This decision by itself does not set the criminal law in motion. The Division Bench of the High Court heard the Petition, and observed that the decision of the Director of Sugar, to lodge criminal complaint, though, has an effect of direction to subordinate to setting criminal law in motion, it is decision taken by the executive. This decision by itself does not set the criminal law in motion. This decision being executive decision, will be a matter of judicial review when examined in civil jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners therein were allowed to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. 8. During the course of hearing of this petition, the petitioners have tendered across the bar copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: R.M. Borde & V.L. Achliya, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.5232 of 2012 [Shankarrao Ambrushi Borkar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others] decided on 13th June, 2014 and submits that the said Writ Petition was disposed of observing therein that the criminal application filed by the applicant for quashing the FIR is pending and therefore the Writ Petition seeking challenge to the directions issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Sugar on 7th June, 2012, need not be considered. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that after disposal of the Criminal Writ Petition No.528/2012 [Shankarrao Ambrushi Borkar & ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.] by the Division Bench granting liberty to file appropriate proceedings, the Managing Director of the Nursinha Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Indapur filed Writ Petition No.8963/2012. The said Writ Petition was heard by the Bench Presided over by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, and the same was disposed of on 9th May, 2013. The said order is also placed on record by the applicants. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invites our attention to the operative part of the order dated 9th May, 2013 referred herein above, and submits that the recovery certificate dated 30th July, 2012, issued by the respondent authorities was quashed and set aside by the High Court. The High Court directed the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune to allow the parties to place on record relevant documents, and then hear the parties and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, and if necessary issue recovery certificate. The High Court directed the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune to allow the parties to place on record relevant documents, and then hear the parties and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, and if necessary issue recovery certificate. He further submits that pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner of Sugar had taken final decision. He invites our attention to the averments made in the additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. It is submitted that the averments made in the said affidavit-in-reply would make it clear that, as per the record total amount towards sugarcane price for the crushing season 2011-12, is paid by the sugar factory in its entirety to those sugarcane growers who have lodged the FIR. Therefore, he submits that the FIR bearing No.16 of 2012 registered at Washi Police Station and also the further proceedings arising out of the same may be quashed and set aside. 11. Respondent no.3 has filed additional affidavit-in-reply. In the said additional affidavit in reply, it is stated that, the details about total amount of sugarcane price for the crushing season 2011-12 is disbursed in favour of Digambar Kundlik Doiphode, Bhagwan Kundlik Doiphode, Balbhim Shankar Nangare, Yuvraj Baburao Doiphode, Raghunath Shamrao More, Mahadev Edba Darade and Laxman Rambhau Doiphode. It is further stated that, 31.559 M.T. of sugarcane of Digambar Kundlik Doiphode was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/- per M.T. amount of Rs.32,096/- was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.32,696/- is actually paid to him. It is further stated in the said additional affidavit in reply that 30.224 M.T. sugarcane of Bhagwan Kundlik Doiphode was crushed during the crushong season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/per M.T. amount of Rs.30,738/was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.35,964/is actually paid to him. It is further stated that 45.977 M.T. sugarcane of Balbhim Shankar Nangare was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/per M.T. amount of Rs.46,759/was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.47,634/is actually paid to him. It is further stated that 45.796 M.T. sugarcane of Yuvraj Baburao Doiphode was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/per M.T. amount of Rs. It is further stated that 45.796 M.T. sugarcane of Yuvraj Baburao Doiphode was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/per M.T. amount of Rs. 46,575/- was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.68,330/- is actually paid to him. It is further stated that 6,978 M.T. sugarcane of Raghunath Shamrao More was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/- per M.T. amount of Rs.7097/- was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.12,175/- is actually paid to him. It is further stated that 41.017 M.T. sugarcane of Mahadev Edba Darade was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs. 1017/- per M.T. amount of Rs.41,714/-was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.61,197/- is actually paid to him. It is further stated that 10,569 M.T. sugarcane of Laxman Rambhau Doiphode was crushed during the crushing season 2011-12 and considering FRP fixed at Rs.1017/- per M.T. amount of Rs. 10749/- was payable to the said person and an amount of Rs.15,770/- is actually paid to him. 12. The learned APP appearing for the respondent - State submits that in view of the fact that the payment of sugarcane is already disbursed in favour of all the aforesaid persons, who lodged the FIR, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 13. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State. With their able assistance, perused the grounds taken in the Criminal Application, annexures thereto, affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in reply filed by the respondents and also other documents placed on record. Admittedly, the payment towards sugarcane supply by the persons who have lodged the FIR has been disbursed in their favour by the said sugar factory. It appears that the first information report was lodged on the basis of the report submitted by the respondent authority. However, in Writ Petition No.8963/2012 [Narsinha Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Indapur v. The State of Maharashtra and others], the petitioner therein assailed the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Sugar cum Special Registrar [Cooperative Societies], Maharashtra State, Pune. It appears that the first information report was lodged on the basis of the report submitted by the respondent authority. However, in Writ Petition No.8963/2012 [Narsinha Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Indapur v. The State of Maharashtra and others], the petitioner therein assailed the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Sugar cum Special Registrar [Cooperative Societies], Maharashtra State, Pune. In that Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Commissioner of Sugar, M.S., Pune to allow the parties to place on record the documents and after hearing the parties, take decision afresh in accordance with law. The Recovery certificate dated 30th July, 2012 was quashed and set aside. 14. As already observed, admittedly, the payment of the aforementioned persons, who lodged the FIR, has been disbursed by the sugar factory. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the entire payment for supply of sugarcane by the sugarcane growers for crushing season 2011-12 has been disbursed. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to go into greater detail about the disbursement of the amount by the sugar factory towards sugarcane supply or how much amount is received by the sugarcane growers and there are dues, if any. So far present application is concerned, there is prayer for quashing of FIR, which was registered on the basis of information given by the Special Auditor, Class-I, Cooperative Societies [Sugar], Osmanabad. Respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply stating that the amount towards sugarcane prices for the aforesaid crushing season is already disbursed in favour of the sugarcane growers. In our opinion, further continuation of the proceedings based upon the First Information Report bearing No.16/2012 dated 15.06.2012 registered at Police Station Washi, Taluka Washi, District Osmanabad would be abuse of process of law/court. 15. In that view of the matter, the First Information Report bearing No.16/2012 dated 15.06.2012 registered at Police Station Washi, Taluka Washi, District Osmanabad, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, further proceedings in Charge sheet No.11/2014 dated 23.05.2014 under Sections 3 and 10 (A) of the Essential Commodities also stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses 'B' 'B1' and 'C' and hence Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. 16. Consequently, further proceedings in Charge sheet No.11/2014 dated 23.05.2014 under Sections 3 and 10 (A) of the Essential Commodities also stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses 'B' 'B1' and 'C' and hence Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. 16. However, we make it clear that merely because we have allowed this Criminal Application and quashed the FIR, it cannot be read / construed as an impediment to the sugarcane growers to avail appropriate civil remedy in case their payment towards sugarcane supply for the crushing season 2010-11 and 2011-12 is not yet paid/disbursed to them.