Cr.Misc. NO. M 34298 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 34298 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION 10.3.2009 Ramdhari Ranga ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana. ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. Ns Shekhawat, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is a retired Assistant Registrar from the Department of Cooperation. He apprehends arrest in a case, registered at the instance of complainant Pritam Singh alleging that after his retirement from the Indian Air Force, he was employed in the Punjab National Bank whereas his wife is employed in the Health Department, Haryana. The main accused Sudhir Bansal had persuaded the complainant to deposit his earnings and savings with the Navyug Non-Agriculture Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Ambala ( for short ' the Society'). Sudhir Bansal was the President of the Society whereas Ajit Pal Singh was the Vice President and Kailash Nath was the Cashier. After the complainant had deposited all his savings worth about Rs.9 lacs, he was given a false assurance by Sudhir Bansal and other members that when ever he would demand money, the same would be returned to him. The FDRs prepared, were renewed from time to time. When the complainant wanted money on the occasion of marriage of his daughter in the year 2005, Sudhir Bansal had tried to put off the matter assuring that the money was safe in the Society. The Cr.Misc. NO. M 34298 of 2008 2 complainant had to postpone the marriage of his daughter for want of money. Sudhir Bansal along with Ajit Pal Singh and other Executive members had collected money from hundreds of retired employees, widows and other persons and issued FDRs. The complainant fed up with the act of the said persons, filed an application before the Assistant Registrar (petitioner), Cooperative Societies that Suhdir Bansal be directed to return his money. The petitioner directed Sudhir Bansal to return half of the amount of FDR on 15.7.2006. Sudhir Bansal had assured that he would return half of the amount before 15.7.2006. The President i.e Sudhir Bansal allegedly colluded with Managing Committee and the petitioner and gave an application on 9.7.2006 to evade the payment of money to the complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that by misusing his authority, in connivance with Sudhir Bansal, ordered for liquidation of the Society. The order was passed on 14.7.2006 without any inquiry and without checking the balance sheet. Every thing was done within five days and the money invested by the general public worth crores was put into liquidation. The petitioner was allegedly given bribe for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Registrar, exercising quasi judicial authority u/s 105 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act ( for short ' the act') and against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, an appeal is maintainable before the Registrar and a revision is also maintainable before the Secretary under the Act. The petitioner had acted bona fide on the report of the Inspector. It has been vehemently urged that while performing his official duties, the petitioner had passed a number of awards against the members of the Society. The petitioner was exercising supervisory powers over 500 cooperative societies. The petitioner vide Annexure P-1 had ordered inquiry in the matter on receipt of information Cr.Misc. NO. M 34298 of 2008 3 on 3.7.2006 and on the basis of the inquiry, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, he had passed the order for liquidation of the Society on 10.7.2006. The Society was under the supervisory control of the Sub-Inspector and the official functions were performed by the petitioner on the report of Inspector, as such neither any mala fide can be attributed to the petitioner nor the allegation of the petitioner having received any bribe from any of the members of the Soceity arises. It was after the retirement of the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. On the other hand learned State counsel, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, informs that the petitioner has been specifically named as an accused of having misused his authority by exercising his jurisdiction without following the statutory rules in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and simultaneous wrongful gain to himself as well as to Sudhir Bansal and other co-accused. The petitioner is named in one more FIR. During the course of investigation, in seven other criminal cases the petitioner has been found to have been indulging in corrupt practice. The petitioner, at present, is involved in total seven criminal cases. It has also been informed that the petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in a similar case was rejected by this court but in S.L.P., interim relief has been granted to the petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the police file. There are serious allegations against the petitioner of having misused his responsible authority as an Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Haryana and by facilitating the misappropriation of the funds of the Society by Sudhir Bansal and other associates, deprived the complainant and other similarly circumstanced persons of their hard earned money, which they had invested in the Society. Though the petitioner had a statutory authority u/s 105 of the Act to act as a quasi Cr.Misc. NO. M 34298 of 2008 4 judicial authority but the manner in which the powers have been arbitrarily used indicate that there is a gross violation of not only the statutory provisions but the basic cannons of justice. The petitioner might have some statutory protection but in case the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, the faith of the general public in the cooperative societies will be shattered and would send a wrong signal to the general public . The arguments, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may constitute a good ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner but no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. March 10 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE