Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 180 (KER)

Somasekhara v. Sudhakara

2018-02-22

B.KEMAL PASHA

body2018
ORDER : B. Kemal Pasha, J. 1. Petitioner is the elected President of NSS Karayogam No. 795, Thakazhi. Allegations were levelled against the elected Committee regarding misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, involving an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- of the NSS Karayogam. A complaint was preferred before the Registrar of NSS. Consequently, the Registrar passed Annexure-A proceedings dated 11.02.2017, based on the resolution passed by the NSS Union on 11.11.2016, by finding that the then existing elected Committee, under the leadership of the petitioner, had lost even its quorum and even a Committee meeting could not be possible to be convened. 2. Through Annexure-A proceedings, allegedly, by invoking the power under Clause 15 of the bye-laws of the NSS Sakha and Clause 55 of the bye-laws of the NSS Karayogam, the Registrar took over the administration from the then existing Committee with effect from 11.02.2017 for a period of six months. He appointed an Ad hoc Committee consisting of five persons. 3. Alleging that Annexure-A proceedings were passed by the Registrar by violating principles of natural justice, the petitioner approached the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha through OS. 198/2017. An application for temporary injunction was filed as I.A. 707/2017 in the suit. The Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, without serving notice on the counter petitioners in the IA, passed Annexure-C order of temporary injunction, whereby "restraining the defendants from initiating any action pursuant to proceedings dated 11.02.2017 or by any other means". 4. On obtaining the said order of temporary injunction, the petitioner and his associates entered the office of the Karayogam again, and took away some records including the day book and ledger, allegedly for the purpose of keeping it in safe custody. 5. Alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 379, IPC etc., the Convener of the Ad hoc Committee as complainant filed a private complaint before the court below. In the complaint, a petition under Section 91, Cr.P.C. was also filed for a search for the seizure of the documents and records allegedly stolen away from the Karayogam office. The court below issued a search warrant, on the basis of which, a search was conducted and the documents could be seized from the custody of the petitioner. Those documents were produced before the court below. Thereafter, the Convener of the Ad hoc Committee filed CMP. The court below issued a search warrant, on the basis of which, a search was conducted and the documents could be seized from the custody of the petitioner. Those documents were produced before the court below. Thereafter, the Convener of the Ad hoc Committee filed CMP. 1466/2017 for the interim custody of the documents of the Karayogam produced before the court, pending conclusion of inquiry and trial. The court below allowed the petition on the execution of a bond for Rs. 1 lakh with two solvent sureties for the like sum each, and also by imposing further conditions. The documents were released to the interim custody of the Convener of the Ad hoc Committee. 6. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed CMP. 1546/2017 before the court below seeking a direction to the said convener to return the documents, and for releasing the documents to the interim custody of the petitioner. The court below, through Annexure-J order, dismissed the CMP and hence, the present Cri.M.C. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of temporary injunction passed by the court below could only be construed as an order of stay of the proceedings passed by the Registrar and therefore, the petitioner could have been in the position of the person, who was entitled to keep and possess the documents, and in such case, the court below ought to have released the documents to the interim custody of the petitioner by considering him as the person entitled to proper custody of those documents. 8. On going through the order of temporary injunction passed in the suit, which has been reproduced above, it seems that it is not an order of stay; whereas, it restricts some future actions of the Ad hoc Committee, based on the proceedings passed by the Registrar. In the proceedings itself, the Registrar had assumed the charge for the administration of the Karayogam and from that date onwards, he was the custodian of the documents. It was the Registrar, who handed over charge subsequently to the Ad hoc Committee as a temporary measure. At any stretch of imagination, the order of temporary injunction passed by the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha does not enable the petitioner to have an entry into the Karayogam in order to take away the records. It has never permitted the petitioner to take away the records. At any stretch of imagination, the order of temporary injunction passed by the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha does not enable the petitioner to have an entry into the Karayogam in order to take away the records. It has never permitted the petitioner to take away the records. Matters being so, Annexures-H and J orders passed by the court below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The said orders are not presently liable to be interfered with. In the result, this Cri.M.C. is dismissed. The final decision or any further decision to be taken in the matter by the court below shall be governed by the final decision in the civil suit.