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 · 590 wordsJ.B. Garg, J.
Palar Ram, President of the Maharshi Balmiki Mandir Prabandhak Samiti, Sonepat and three other members of the aforesaid Society have moved this Court under section 482 of the aforesaid Society challenging FIR No. 406 dated 15.6.1990 for offences under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and praying that the FIR in question be quashed.
Briefly, the facts as alleged are that the society known as Balmiki Mandir Prabandhak Samiti, Sonepat was registered long ago on 21.6.1985 under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and petitioner No. 1 is its President, petitioner No.3 is its General Secretary, petitioner No. 4 is a member of the society and petitioner No. 2 is its Legal Adviser; that the society in question ahd been maintaining its accounts regularly and these are also audited by a Chartered Accountant and Om Parkash son of Risal Singh resident of Balmiki Basti, Sonepat, has logged his FIR only with a view to Malign the present officebearers. There is a specific plea that cognizance of any offence cannot be taken unless there is a complaint in writing by the Registrar.
It shall be useful to reproduce Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable to Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh and it is as under :
"Cognizance of offenceNo Court inferior to that of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act, nor shall cognizance of any such offence be taken except on a complaint in writing by the Registrar or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf."
A perusal of this provision goes to show that if there was any grievance or allegation such as that of embezzlement the Registrar or any person authorised by his alone could institute a complaint. It is an admitted fact that Balmiki Mandir Prabandhak Samiti, Sonepat is registered under the Societies Registration Act, according to the certificate dated 21.6.1985 (Annexure P1). There were vague allegations that some embezzlements have been made by Palar Ram son of Shri Gainda Ram who was elected President of the aforesaid society.
The learned counsel for petitioners has referred to the details of the names and addresses of the members, Executive Members and also to the proceedings and the audit held by recognised Chartered Accountants and that all these reports were submitted to the Executive Authorities of the District as well from time to time. He has also referred to the details that a sum of Rs. 15,000/ was received as a kind of grant from the State Government in the year 1986, Rs. 25,000/ in the year 1987, Rs. 10,000/ in the year 1988 and that how it has been accounted for from time to time together with the other minor donations which also find mention in the report of the Chartered accountants. Here, attention has also been invited to State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1982 SC 949 where in a case under Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, it was observed that if an FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence the High Court was justified in quashing investigation.
The learned Assistant Advocate General could not support the registration of the case where no such step was taken by the Registrar as required under section 21 of the Act, referred to above. The conclusion is that the FIR in question registered at PoliceStation, City, Sonepat against the present petitioners, is hereby quashed.
JUDGMENT accordingly