1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2076 OF 2009 1) Vasudeo s/o Ananda Ingle and Ors. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PR Katneshwarkar Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th August 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants/accused. 2) The applicants pray that the F.I.R. Dated 16.6.2009 lodged at Police Station Bazar Peth, Bhusawal and the proceeding initiated under private complaint bearing RCC No. 95/2009 dated 23.6.2009 be quashed and set aside. 3) The Counsel, while making submissions, has contended that though there were deposits of 2 the complainant to the tune of Rs.7,96,479/- with Santoshi Mata Merchants’ Co.op.Credit Society Ltd. Bhusawal (hereinafter to be referred to as Co.op.Credit society), however, the complainant has resorted to civil remedies by approaching the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Jalgaon, where by virtue of order passed by the Forum, the original depositor is protected since the properties of the Directors are attached. According to the Counsel, in order to threaten the applicants/accused and to create pressure on them, a new way of shortcut method is initiated by frivolous prosecution and hence according to him, the same needs to be quashed. 4) In support of his contention, the Counsel took recourse to the Judgment in the matter of G.Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. And Ors. - (2000) 2 SCC 636. It was a matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter the prosecution for an offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC was launched and the Apex Court, on analysis of the facts, 3 came to the conclusion that it was abuse of process of law and hence the proceedings were liable to be quashed and set aside. 5) The Counsel while reading the observations of the Lordships in the matter of G. Sagar Suri, took me to paragraph 11, which refers to the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Chandrapal Singh Vs. Maharaj Singh – (1982) 1 SCC 466, as under - “ A frustrated landlord after having met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous.” 6) The Counsel also took recourse to the Judgment in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. - (2007) 12 SCC 1, to highlight as to how the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of proceedings are to be exercised, which is inherent power and when such exercise is justified. The Counsel 4 read paragraph 22 of the said Judgment, as under : The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely of civil nature and respondent no.3 has already instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents against the appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. 7) In the same judgment, the Counsel read paragraph 50, which runs as under : “Personal liberty and the interest of the State. Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 all speak with one voice - liberty is the natural and 5 inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.” 8) The observations of the Apex Court referred herein above will not be available to be applied to the facts of the present case with same scale as desired by learned Counsel. The facts in the matter at hand though depict that the creditor has resorted to his remedies before Consumer District Redressal Forum at Jalgaon, however, his remedies to initiate action for infraction of penal provisions, are not barred. It is to be prima facie indicated that such exercise is a vendetta and to be abuse of process of law. 9) The complainant under bona fide belief reposed confidence in the Directors, Chairman and Manager of the Co.op. Credit Society. However, they activated the transactions of the society in a manner not befitting to the benefit of the creditors, depositors and the borrowers. 6 Directors have apparently obliterated solemn undertaking to abide rules and regulations, which they have and ventured to disburse the loans to unworthy persons, without proper security, which made recovery a difficult task. Consequently, huge amount of Rs.7,96,479/- of the depositor alone was put to squeezing and he rightly felt to have been deceived by the omission and inaction at the instance of the above referred applicants/accused. The duties cast on the applicants in the capacity of Chairman, Manager and Directors of the Co.op. Credit Society will not allow them to keep their hands folded to assert that, since the borrowers did not pay the dues, they are not responsible to honour the deposits. Disbursement of loans to the borrowers, without any security and without proper care and even without making any efforts to get them recovered, has to be faced by the applicants themselves, for which the complainant and the depositors should not be castigated. It is not a civil dispute, but a articulated 7 exercise to siphon off depositors money. It is obvious, the recovery of loans under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, would be difficult. 10) It seems, a systematic chain has been operated by the present applicants, in which, like the present complainant, several others are also put to difficulties. 11) The applicants cannot wash their hands to meet the responsibility, they have prima facie activated in the siphoning of the funds, particularly of the depositors. Consequently, the quashment of the proceedings, as sought, will not be available to be coined, as the powers to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be exercised in the following situations, viz - (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Reading the complaint as a whole prima facie I find that there is no abuse of process of the 8 Court, nor this Court is required to give effect to an order under the Code or ends of justice does not deserve to observe that there is fluttering in the matter, requiring interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised, sparingly, carefully and with caution. I do not see that criminal prosecution is used as an instrument of harassment or humiliation. Consequently, no case for quashment of the proceedings, criminal application rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2076.09