ARUNLATAB DERIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of First Information Report and investigation of crime no. 218/2012 registered at police station Babai, District Hoshangabad.

(2.) The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that complainant/respondent no.2 Anil Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative Society Hoshangabad has lodged the FIR (Exhibit P-15) through written application dated 27/07/2012 wherein it is alleged against this applicant and other co-accused that they were involved in preparing the forged document and thereby they made loss to the tune of Rs. 8,38,638/- to the Cooperative Society. It is further alleged that the report is lodged on the basis of audit made in the year 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. Audit report is Annnexure P-14 wherein applicant and co-accused Sandhya Sharma had supplied 59.02 quintals of less wheat contrary to the purchase policy and made loss to the tune of Rs. 66,692/- to the society. It is also found that applicant and co-accused were involved in misappropriation of amount of Rs. 1,69,370/- in the name of prasangik expenses. It is found in the audit report that in the year 2010-2011, 75 quintals of less wheat was supplied by them and thereby made loss of Rs. 90,000/- to the society. Further they have made loss of Rs. 3,48,655/- in the name of prasangik expenses. It is also found that 79 empty bags were not returned as per the audit report of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively and caused heavy loss to the society. It is further alleged that there was no office of the society however, an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- have been paid by way of rent. On the basis of aforesaid allegation made in the written application, respondent no.1 SHO, Police Station Babai has registered the FIR against the applicant and co-accused persons u/s 420, 467, 468/34 of IPC. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that respondent no.2 lodged the First Information Report against the applicant with malafide intention because during the inquiry conducted by respondent no.2/complainant in compliance of order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 16284/2011 filed by one Murarilal Patel wherein respondent no.2/complainant has demanded Rs. Two lacs from the husband of applicant to give the report in favour of society. When such demand was not fulfilled, respondent no.2 gave a report against the society and thereafter, lodged a false report against her. It is further submitted that applicant already raised the dispute u/s 64 of Co-operative Societies Act against the District Manager of M.P. State Co-operative Limited, Hoshangabad for showing the less supply of wheat to them by the society and same is pending. It is further submitted that wheat were purchased in the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 (Annexure P-12) under due authorization letter of the Collector. In the year 2011-2012, the transporter authorized by the State Govt. lifted the wheat from the society but did not deliver the same to its destination. In this regard, report (Annexure P-13) is lodged by the society. It is further submitted that in view of provision of section 51 -B of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act amount can be recovered after giving the notice and opportunity of hearing to the purchaser and applicant. It is submitted that when specific provision has been made under the Statute then the remedy lies in the said procedure. In these circumstances, FIR lodged by respondent no.2 is bad in law and liable to be quashed therefore, prays for quashment of FIR against the applicant. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Meena Rathore (Smt.) Vs. CBI, ACB Bhopal, 2010 ILR(MP) 30.