Om Parkash vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

By this common judgment Criminal Misc. No. 4153M of 1989, 4155M of 1989, 4157M of 1989 and 4159M of 1989 can conveniently be disposed of because the question involved in all the petitions is identical. Even the parties are common.

Petitioner was serving as Secretary of Fatehpur Niyamat Khan Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited in District Sirsa in the years 1981 to 1984. In the arbitration references under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 dated 11.10.1984 the Assistant Registrar of the Societies gave an award against the petitioner. There were different awards in different petitions. In terms of the award, the petitioner is alleged to have deposited different amounts in instalments. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies got recorded a first information report against the petitioner with respect to the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The challan has since been filed in court and the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa has framed the charge. In this regard four different challans have been presented.

Petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report and the subsequent proceedings pending in the court on the short ground that once the award has been given by the Arbitrator appointed under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act, the criminal proceedings on basis of the first information report cannot continue. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) RCR 175.

The petition has been opposed and in the reply it is not being denied that the Arbitrator had announced the award. It is, however, contended that this does not put an end to the criminal liability of the petitioner.

The petitioner''s counsel said all that was possible in favour of his client. But the matter in question is concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) RCR 420. The decision in the case of Kashmira Singh''s case (supra) was overruled. The Division Bench held that in such circumstances criminal proceedings can be initiated and can continue. The precise findings were recorded in paragraphs 5 and 6 which are being reproduced below for the sake of facility :

"5. Be that as it may, in the subsequent rulings of this Court, Janak Raj''s case (supra) appears to have been construed to imply that once a matter has been referred to the Arbitrator under section 55 of the Act, criminal proceedings on the same cause of action were barred. This view was taken in Harbhagwan Das, Bant Singh, Hakam Singh and Kashmira Singh''s case (supra), Janak Raj''s case (supra) being specifically mentioned as the judicial precedent in support of this view. The matter of material significance to note here is that the judgment of the Division Bench in Laxmi Narain''s case (supra) was not brought to the notice of Hon''ble Judges dealing with these cases and curiously enough it appears that the leading Law Reports too omitted to publish this obviously important judicial pronouncement even though it had been approved for reporting.

After giving the matter our most careful consideration we not only feel bound by it but also respectfully agree with and endorse the view expressed by the Division Bench in Laxmi Narain''s case (supra) and consequently hold that reference to the Arbitrator under Section 55 of the Act constitutes no bar to criminal proceedings on the same cause of action being initiated or continued against the person concerned. We cannot, therefore, subscribe to the view to the contrary expressed in Janak Raj, Bhagwan Das, Bant Singh, Hakam Singh and Kashmira Singh''s cases (supra) which we consequently are constrained to disagree with and differ from. They must thus stand overruled."

In face of the above findings of the fact that Kashmira Singh''s case (supra) has since been overruled as well as the binding nature of the decision of the Division Bench, the answer to the argument is provided and no further discussion indeed would be worthwhile. The petitions being without merit, therefore, must fail and are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.