PALAR RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALAR Ram, President of the Maharishi Balmiki Mandir Probandhak Samiti Sonepat and three other members of the aforesaid Society have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging FIR No. 406 dated 15.6.1990 for offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and praying that the FIR in the question be quashed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts as alleged are that the society known as Balmiki Mandir Prabhandak Samiti, Sonepat was registered long ago on 21-6-1985 under the Societies Registeration Act, 1860 and the petitioner No. 1 as its President, petitioner No. 3 is its General Secretary, petitioner No. 4 is a member of the Society and petitioner No. 2 is its Legal Advisor; that the society in question had been maintaining its accounts regularly and these are also audited by a Chartered Accountant and Om Prakash son of Risal Singh resident of Balmiki Basti Sonepat, has lodged this FIR only with a view to malign the present office bearers. There is a specific plea that cognizance of any offence cannot be taken unless there is complaint in writing by the Registrar.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the details of the names and addresses of the members, Executive Members and also to the proceedings and the audit held by recognised Chartered Accountants and that all these reports were submitted to the Executive Authorities of the District as well from time to time. He has also referred to the details that a sum of Rs. 15000/- was received as a kind of grant from the State Government in the year 1986, Rs. 25000/- in the year 1987, Rs. 10,000/- in the year 1988 and that how it has been accounted for from time to time together with the other minor donations which also find mention in the report of the Chartered Accountants. Here, attention has also been invited to State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1982 SC 949, where in a case under Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, it was observed that if an FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence the High Court was justified in quashing investigation.