ASHOK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of both the sides, the petitions are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions to quash the F.I.R. No. 123/2013 registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r.w. Section 34 of IPC mainly on the ground that the second F.I.R. is not permissible in law.

(2.) In nutshell, it is the say of petitioners that they are the members of Sahakar Mitra Chandrakant Hari Badhe Sir Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Warangaon [hereinafter referred to as the said society for the sake of brevity]. As members, they had taken certain loan which they have repaid. However, subsequently the office bearers of said society have prepared some false and fabricated documents in their names and on the basis of those documents, created false record that they have further secured loan and same is not repaid by them. They have challenged the said act of the office bearers of said society by filing dispute before the cooperative Court at Jalgaon. In which they have claimed the declaration that they have not secured such loan from the said society and documents made in that behalf are false and fabricated. The dispute is pending for adjudication before cooperative Court at Jalgaon.

(3.) On the basis of audit of said society conducted for the period 1/4/2007 to 31/3/2009 the auditor has lodged complaint with police station Varangaon and acting on that report the police have registered F.I.R./CR No. 90/2010 u/s. 406, 408, 409, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the Chairman and Members of Board of Directors of said society. It is further say of petitioners that without any cause or justifiable reason the respondent No. 2 i.e. the auditor has lodged another report with Police Station, Varangaon as against the petitioners and few other borrowers of said society. On the basis of said report, police have registered offence under Sections 420, 406, r/w Section 34 I.P.C. vide F.I.R./CR No. 123/13 against the petitioners and some other borrowers. In nutshell, it is the contention of the petitioners that as F.I.R. No. 90/10 was already registered at the instance of the auditor against the Chairman and Directors of said society, the registration of F.I.R. i.e. F.I.R. No. 123/13 is not permissible under law against them as it amounts to second F.I.R.