LAWS(MPH)-2008-1-51

ARVIND KUMAR BHARGAVA Vs. LALIT PARASHAR

Decided On January 18, 2008
ARVIND KUMAR BHARGAVA Appellant
V/S
LALIT PARASHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure by petitioners/accused persons being aggrieved by the order dated 17. 01. 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara in complaint Case No. 770/2000, whereby the application preferred by them under Section 50 (2) of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999 has been rejected and also against taking of cognizance under Section 294, 452, 392, 500 and 506/34 of IPC against them on 14. 12. 2000.

(2.) THE facts of the petition are that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are the Manager, Recovery Officer (retired) and supervisor of Bhumi Vikas Bank, Kareli, District narsinghpur. At the relevant time, the petitioners No. 1 and 3 were posted at Kareli whereas the applicant No. 2 was posted at Narsinghpur. In the year 2000, there was immense pressure from the Chairman and Registrar of cooperative Societies and Collector for initiating recovery proceedings in all the cases pending under Section 23 and 26 of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas bank, Adhiniyam, 1999. One letter was written on 09. 05. 2000 by Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, bhopal to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies informing that within 30 days from the receipt of the letter all the legal cases pending in the Bank should be completed. In pursuance of this letter the Registrar-Cooperative Societies, Madhya Pradesh vide his letter dated 24. 11. 2000 appointed various public servants of the Bank to act as a Sales Officer under the provisions of section 35 of Adhiniyam, 1999. In delegation of the powers, Manager of Jila Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas bank Maryadit, Narsinghpur, in the month of June 2000 constituted a team to go to Kareli for the recoveries. This fact is clear from the certificate given by the Manager on 08. 09. 2004 that the Respondent No. 2 Smt. Sumanlata parashar took a loan to purchased a tractor from the bank. She could not pay the installments, therefore, the notices were given to her in spite of she did not pay an amount of Rs. 18,730/ -. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 15 of the M. P. Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin vikas Bank, Adhiniyam, 1966 (of the old Act) a distraint order dated 01. 06. 2000 was issued against her. In furtherance of this distraint order, the Sales Officers also issued last warning to her either to pay the amount of rs. 19,292/-or to face the distraint proceedings. Thereafter the applicants went to the house of respondent No. 2 and asked to deposit the amount due but the respondents refused to pay and threatened them for dire consequences. The members of the team gave warning to them not to interfere with the confiscation proceedings. After following the procedure they seized a sofa set from the verandah of the house of the respondents on 28. 06. 2000. Village Kotwar duly signed the seizure memo. Information regarding the seizure of the property was also given to Station House Officer, aamgaon on the same date. The respondents became annoyed by the action taken by the petitioners. They made the false complaint to police and to Collector, narsinghpur which were found false. They also raised the dispute under Section 64 of the Societies Act, 1960 which was dismissed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative societies vide order dated 04. 12. 2000 the appeal was also dismissed on 05. 12. 2000 then they lodged a criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, gadarwara under Section 294, 452, 392, 500 and 506/34 of the IPC. A criminal case was registered against them on 14. 12. 2000 and notices were issued. Upon receiving the same, the petitioners moved an application under Section 197 Cr. P. C. as well as under Section 50 (2)of the M. P. Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank, adhiniyam, 1999 praying that they being public servants can not be prosecuted unless prior sanction is obtained from the Government. This application was dismissed on 05. 03. 2001. The petitioners preferred a revision against this order but the same was dismissed on 22. 11. 2001 by additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara. Thereafter they preferred M. Cr. C. No. 1006/02 under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22. 10. 2002. Thereafter they also filed M. Cr. C. 2926/03 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter they preferred M. Cr. C. No. 5570/03 under Section 482 of cr. P. C. . This M. Cr. C. was decided on 20. 07. 2004 whereby petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to raise plea of acting in good faith in bonafide discharge of their duties. In compliance of this order, the petitioners moved an appropriate application before the trial Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 17. 01. 2005. Being aggrieved by that order, this petition has been filed on the grounds mentioned in it.

(3.) ON perusal of record it reveals that respondents No. 1 and 2 lodged complaint against petitioners to the effect that respondent No. 2 Smt. Sumanlata Parashar took loan of Rs. 1,49,000/-for purchasing a tractor in the year 1993 from Bhumi Vikas Bank, Branch Kareli. This loan was to be repaid in 9 equal installments in 9 years. Each installment being of Rs. 32,700/ -. Most of the amount was paid upto 25. 04. 2000. The amount of rs. 16,297/-was outstanding which was to be deposited upto April, 2002. Even then the petitioners came at their house on 28. 06. 2000 and without giving any notice carried away T. V. , sofa set etc also used filthy languages, extended threats and defamed them by lowering down their prestige.