Nirmal Singh Dhillon vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

In the present petition as well as in Crl. Misc. No. 7969M of 1989 common questions of fact and law are involved and as such both these petitions shall be disposed of by one judgment.

In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner while working as the Secretary of the Wadala Jadeed Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Coopeative society) did not deposit Rs. 57,189.60 in the account of the said society with the bank, even though he had made entry in this regard in his own band on 11121985 at page 30 in the case book. The said amount was not deposited even though the Manager of the said society gave one month''s time to the present petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount in the account of the society. Thereafter, the society through its Secretary filed a suit for arbitration before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who, vide his separate award dated 1211987 (Annexure PT1) held the present petitioner liable for the amount of Rs. 57,189.60 as the principal amount together with interest at the rate of 121/2% per annum, dated 2821986 amounting to Rs. 1710/ together with Rs. 250/ as costs of the arbitration and also awarded interest at the rate of 121/2% per annum till the realisation of the principal amount from the petitioner. It was also directed that the said amount could be recovered from Mohan Singh who is a guarantor of the Secretary of the society. It was further pleaded that after the passing of the aforesaid award the impugned FIR No. 141 of 1987 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Jalandhar on 27.4.1987 against the present petitioner on the basis of the letter written by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar to the Sr. Supdt. of Police, Jalandhar dated 1041987 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code regarding embezzlement in respect of aforesaid amount of Rs. 57,189.60. The present petition relates to the quashment of the impugned First Information Report referred to above. The quashment is sought mainly on the ground that the subject matter of the award is also the subject matter of the First Information Report and the registration of the impugned First Information Report on the same facts, after passing of the award of the arbitrator is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.

The facts relating to Crl. Misc. No. 7969M of 1989 are only at variance to the extent that the arbitrator had given exparte award on 12.1. 1987. against the petitioner who was held liable for the payment of Rs. 28,119.52 together with the interest at the rate of 171/2% per annum from 14111985 with costs of Rs. 250/ and in respect of the embezzlement of the same amount impugned First Information Report No. 454 of 8121987 was registered against the petitioner.

In both these cases on behalf of the State it was pleaded that the petitioner with dishonest intention committed embezzlement concerning the amounts in respect of which the arbitrator had given the awards and criminal offence under section 409 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the award of the arbitrator is in the nature of a decree which can be executed in a civil Court. The matter which culminated in the award has, therefore, assumed characteristics of civil nature and as such the taking of criminal proceedings against the defaulter regarding the same subject matter must be held to be abuse of process of Court in spite of the fact that jurisdiction of criminal Court to initiate proceedings cannot be disputed. Reliance in this regard has rightly been placed on the Single Bench authority of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) CLR 35 as well as in Janak Raj v. State of Punjab, 1972 CLR (Pb. & Har.) 236.

It is significant to note that the impugned First Information Reports in both these petitions were got registered after the arbitrator had already given its exparte awards against the petitioner. In these circumstances mere fact that the petitioner is 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 in view of the fact that arbitrator had already given awards against the petitioner concerning the amounts in respect of which the embezzlement is said to have been committed.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned First Information Reports against the petitioner and the consequent proceedings taken thereunder are ordered to be quashed. Both these petitions are, accordingly, allowed.