ORDER : Heard 2. Shri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that respondent initiated proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 64 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, (‘the Act’ for short) by filing a complaint alleging certain irregularities against petitioners, who are Office Bearers/Directors of Sri Maruthi Housing Cooperative Society Limited. The Assistant Registrar, after holding detailed enquiry submitted a report on 11.06.2010, holding that allegations against the petitioners were not proved. In the meanwhile, on 04.12.2009, respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that petitioners had acted detrimental to the interest of members of the Society and misused their position and thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 199, 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 421, 423, 464, 465, 468 & 477A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The said private complaint was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation. After investigation, police filed ‘B’ Report. Complainant challenged the ‘B’ Report by filing a protest petition. After recording complainant’s statement, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process on 03.12.2011. Petitioners have challenged the said order in this proceedings. 3. Shri Sanjay Gowda, argued that having initiated proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings, respondent filed the instant private complaint. Police, during the course of the investigation have adverted to the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society dated 11.06.2010 and filed ‘B’ Report. He urged that in the sworn statement, complainant has not referred to Assistant Registrar’s report but made omnibus statements alleging irregularities. 4. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Shri Sanjay Gowda urged that the learned Magistrate also has not adverted to the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar. 5. Though several opportunities were given, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Indisputable facts of the case are, complainant initiated proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. Assistant Registrar has held that the allegations levelled against the petitioners were not proved. Preempting Assistant Registrar’s report, the instant private complaint has been filed. 8. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Indisputable facts of the case are, complainant initiated proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. Assistant Registrar has held that the allegations levelled against the petitioners were not proved. Preempting Assistant Registrar’s report, the instant private complaint has been filed. 8. Shri Sanjay Gowda is right in his submission that complainant has not referred to the report of the Assistant Registrar in his sworn statement before the learned Magistrate. A copy of ‘B’ Report placed for perusal of this Court, indicates that police have taken note of the report. The complainant, who claims to be a member of the society, initiated appropriate proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. The report of the Assistant Registrar has attained finality. Thus, even before the Assistant Registrar gave his report, complainant hurriedly initiated criminal proceedings with the very same allegations. The contents of the ‘B’ Report have not been adverted to by the learned Magistrate. Irregularities in the affairs of the society falls within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and governed by the provisions of the Act. Complainant having initiated appropriate proceedings under the Act, could not have initiated parallel proceedings on the very same allegations. 9. Further, the order dated 03.12.2011 passed in PCR No.27219/2009 taking cognizance and issuing process does not contain cogent reasons. Hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable for want of application of mind. In the result, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. The order of taking cognizance dated 03.12.2011 and all proceedings in C.C.No.36191/2011 (PCR No.27219/2009) pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. No costs.