High Courts

Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 October 1993 · Citation: (1994) 1 AICLR 544

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.K.Sandhu, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5222-M of 1992
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 656 words

H.K. Sandhu, J.

1.

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5222M of 1992. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5225M of 1992, Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab as in both the petitions same relief is claimed by the petitioners.

2.

Kartar Singh, salesman and Surjit Singh, ExField Assistant Markfed Branch Office, Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur filed these two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 184 dated 21.9.1989 registered against them at Police Station Guruharsahai on 21.9.1989 under Section 408 Indian Penal Code and all the proceeding arising therefrom.

3.

Brief facts of the case as given in the FIR annexure P/1 are that the petitioners were holding charge of wheat stock separately alongwith Sh. M.P.S. Bahia, Senior Branch Officer at Markfed Office Guruharsahai. These stocks were purchased on behalf of Government of India and were stored at various storage points at Guruharsahai. During delivery of wheat to Food Corporation of India, the petitioners caused a shortage and loss to Markfed amounting to Rs. 1,27,526.65. These stocks were misappropriated by the petitioner and Senior Branch Officer and thus case was got registered against them by Barinder Singh, District Manager, Markfed Ferozepur.

4.

The petitioners alleged that they were employees of the Federation and were governed by Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. If anything was found against them during audit, then surcharge proceedings were to be initiated under Section 54 of the Act, Markfed got appointed Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies as an Enquiry Officer against them to initiate the surcharge proceedings and those proceedings were still at initial stage. Challan was put in the court on the basis of FIR without waiting for the result of the surcharge proceedings. Lodging of FIR and then referring the matter to the Arbitrator was nothing but clear abuse of process of law. The dispute was of civil nature and as the matter was already referred to the Arbitrator, criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

5.

In the return filed by the respondents the averment made in the petition that matter had been referred to an Arbitrator under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 was not denied.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexures P/2 and P/3 vide which the matter regarding shortage of wheat was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur under section 54 of the Act. He urged that since proceedings under Section 54 of the Act are being taken against the petitioners, criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process of the Court. Criminal proceedings could be launched only after the finalisation of surcharge proceedings taken against the petitioners. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Brijinder Paul v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) RCJ 690. In this case too the petitioners were employees of the Markfed and were holding charge of wheat stocks at Markfed storage points. A shortage in the stock was detected and a case was got registered against the petitioners. Proceedings under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act were also initiated against them and it was held that FIR was liable to be quashed, but criminal action against the petitioners for criminal breach of trust could be taken after the finalisation of surcharge proceedings.

8.

The above mentioned authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case too the matter has been referred to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies for initiating the proceedings under section 54 of the Act. So following the authority referred above, I allow both these petitions. FIR No. 184 dated 21.9.1989 registered against the petitioners and the action based thereon are quashed but it is made clear that the criminal action may be taken against the petitioner for criminal breach of trust after the finalisation of surcharge proceedings.