Maha Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Maha Singhpetitioner worked as a Secretary the Butana Kundu Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, Butana from 2.12.1988 to 30.6.1989. When he handed over the charge to Shri Inder Singh, Secretary, it was found that he embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,71,460/ while making receipt entries in the cash book on various dates and by showing wrong total. A letter was written to Station House Officer, Police Station, Baroda District Sonepat for registration of a case against Maha Singh on the basis of which case FIR No. 127 under Sections 406/409/467 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Baroda against the petitioner on 10.6.1992. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the above referred First Information Report and all further proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioner alleged in the petition that before the matter was reported to the police arbitration proceedings were initiated against him by the Butana Kundu Cooperative Credit and Services Society, under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 before Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak who announced the award on 31.7.1990 directing him to pay the principal amount of Rs. 1,53,915.80 and Rs. 17,544.12 as interest within a period of 60 days. It was further directed that the society will be at liberty to arrest him and to attach his movable and immovable property till payment. Since the matter had been decided by the Arbitrator, the complainant society was in a position to recover the amount and registration of the criminal case against him on the basis of the same set of facts was an abuse of the process of the court.

In the return filed by the respondent, this fact was admitted that an award had been given against the petitioner for the recovery of the amount but it was maintained that as the petitioner had embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,71,460/ he was liable for offences under Sections 406/409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was rightly registered against him. The First Information Report was not liable to be quashed simply on the ground that the Arbitrator had given an award against the petitioner.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that regarding the embezzlement of the amount the matter was referred to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak who acting as an Arbitrator gave an award in favour of the society for the amount alleged to have been embezzled. Subsequently for the same very amount the First Information Report which is being impugned, was lodged. After the pronouncement of the award the dispute had assumed a civil character and the award could be executed like a decree. So First Information Report in respect of the same set of facts and the resultant criminal prosecution of the petitioner was nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The First Information Report was liable to be quashed on this score alone. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the case of Harbhagwan Dass v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156 , Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 175 : 1989(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 413 , Mohan Lal alias Mohan Chand v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 536 and Nirmal Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 468 . In this latter authority secretary of a Cooperative Society embezzled the amount of the Society and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator who gave his award. After the award case under Section 409, Indian Penal Code was registered. It was held that in these circumstances mere fact that the petitioner was alleged to have committed embezzlement in respect of the money entrusted to him in his capacity as Secretary of the Society would not be per se sufficient to allow criminal proceedings against the petitioner to continue.

I have considered the above mentioned authority and am of the view that after the award had been given with respect to the amount embezzled by the petitioner, it will not be appropriate to subject him to face criminal litigation on the same set of facts. The award of the Arbitrator can be executed like a decree in a civil court and taking of criminal proceedings against the defaulter regarding the same subject matter will amount misuse of the process of the court.

For the reasons given above, I allow this petitioner and quash First Information Report No. 127 Annexure P.1 and all subsequent proceedings based thereon.