IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1824 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.654/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PLAYYANUR. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. P. BALAN MASTER, PRESIDENT, PAYYANNUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 3. T.V. GOPALAN, SECRETARY, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 4. D.K. GOPINATH, VICE PRESIDENT PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 5. C. NARAYANAN NAIR, DIRECTOR, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 6. M. BASHEER, DIRECTOR, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 7. SADANAM NARAYANAN, DIRECTOR, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 8. A.K. RAJEEVAN, DIRECTOR, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 9. C. PUSHPALATHA, DIRECTOR, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. 10. V. MOHANAN, DIRECTOR, PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & THE STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. REPRESENTED BY S.A. NAIR, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, URBAN BANK DEPARTMENT, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, RBI FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL. M. APPLN. NO: 3576 OF 2006 IN CRL.M.C. NO: 1824 OF 2006 DISMISSED: 3.9.2008 SD/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C. No. 1824 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd September, 2008. O R D E R Petitioners, the Payyanur Co-operative Urban Society Ltd., Payyanur and its office bearers are accused in C.C.654/02 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur. That case was initiated on a complaint preferred by the first respondent, the Reserve Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram for violation of Sections 7, 22 and 49A of the Banking Regulation Act, which is made punishable under Section 46 of that Act. The complaint is that the first petitioner which is a Co-operative Urban Society Ltd. registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and without obtaining licence from the first respondent used the word 'bank' in its name and entered into banking business and received deposits from non-members of the first petitioner. The present attempt is to get the complaint (Annexure I) quashed invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C.No: 1824/06 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners, the first respondent and the Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted and it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent also that though the first petitioner had initially used the name 'bank' in its name and entered into banking business with non-members, as per the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies consequent to a meeting held between the representatives of the State Government and the first respondent in the light of the decision of this Court in Muhammed Usman v. Registrar of Co- operative Societies {2003(1) KLT 69} and a batch of writ petitions, has effected change of its name deleting the word 'bank' and amended its byelaws avoiding banking business with non-members. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly situated complaints against certain other societies were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Cherukode Co-op. Rural Bank Ltd. v. Parur Service Co-op. Bank {2006(3) KLT 38} and the Division Bench quashed those complaints as prayed for in Crl.M.C. Nos: 413/05 and 2854/05. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the light of the said decision of the Division Bench which has Crl.M.C.No: 1824/06 3 become final, Annexure I complaint is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent in all fairness submitted that consequent to Annexure II decision and Annexure III circular, the first petitioner has avoided the word 'bank' from its name and stopped banking business with non-members by effecting necessary amendments in its bye-law. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the offences referred to in Annexure I complaint are in respect of what transpired before such amendment. 5. It is not disputed that it is on the strength of the registration granted under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act that the first petitioner started banking business with non-members though without obtaining licence from the first respondent. It is seen from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Division Bench (Annexure XII) that in respect of similar complaints, criminal miscellaneous cases were filed in this Court and the Division Bench quashed the complaints in those cases of course, giving liberty to the first respondent to initiate prosecution in case of any violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. It is conceded that the decision of the Division Bench in Crl.M.C.No: 1824/06 4 Cherukode Co-op. Rural Bank Ltd (supra) has become final. There is no reason why the same benefit should not be made available to petitioners. Therefore, I am inclined to invoke the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly this petition succeeds. Annexure I complaint is quashed, leaving it open to the first respondent to initiate fresh prosecution proceedings in cases of any violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE jj