SURINDER KUMAR BATRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 171 dated 3/08/1989 registered at Police Station Abohar under Ss. 408/409/465/468/471/120-B, I. P.C. which was registered on the basis of a letter issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Fazilka to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. The letter reads as under :-

(2.) Notice of this petition was given to the State. Joginder Singh, Sub-Inspector, SHO Police Station, Saddar Abohar has filed para-wise reply by way of an affidavit and has stated that a Special Audit report was made by Shri Om Prakash Sub Inspector, Audit Co-operative Societies, Abohar-II; that according to the Audit report, the employees of the Society, committee members of the society, Government employees and all the petitioners have embezzled an amount of Rs. 3,67,465.77. He further stated that all the petitioners were working in the Central Cooperative Bank Branch, Kundal; that Raj Kumar, petitioner was working as Branch Manager, Ram Chander was the Cashier and Surinder Kumar Batra was also Cashier in the Branch Kundal during the year 1985-86. He further stated that Baldev Singh son of Balwant Singh, Gurcharan Singh son of Pritam Singh, Surinder Singh son of Bikar Singh, Baljinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh and Amritpal Singh son of Baldev Singh were shown as residents of village Ghuriana but in fact these persons do not belong to village Ghuriana that Darshan Singh, President, Inder Singh, Vice President, Sukhdeep Singh, Committee member, Hari Singh, Committee member Mohinder Pal Secretary and Gurmail Singh, S.M.(F) prepared and passed Maximum Cash Credit Limits in respect of the above-said persons but the said persons did not deposit the amount of their share in the bank; that the petitioners in league and connivance with the committee members, Secretary and Salesmen of Society, Inspector and Sub-Inspector had shown the amount in the documents in the name of the above 5 fictitious persons. It has been further stated in the affidavit filed by Joginder Singh, SHO that it was the duty of the petitioners to check the shares of the persons before advancing the payment, but the petitioners failed to do so and in this way, they all embezzled the amount of Rs. 70,191.75 shown in the name of the fictitious persons; that Surinder Kumar son of Sh. Lachman Dass and Subhash Chander son of Nihal Chand were members of Burj Hanumangarh Co-operative Agri. Service Society Ltd. but their maximum cash credit limits were not sent by the Society to the Branch Manger, Central Bank, Kundal. He further stated that all the petitioners and Secretary, Mohinder Pal and Salesman, Gurmail Singh added their names in the maximum Cash Credit Limit and in this way they made false entries in the record of the bank and made the payment to Surinder Kumar and Subhash Chander of Rs. 32,425.00 that the above payment is illegal as the petitioners had no authority to make the payment to Surinder Kumar and Subhash Chander that Gurdev Singh son of Prithi Singh, member of the Society deposited Rs. 4662.00 with Cashier, Surinder Kumar Batra; that he entered this amount in the bank on 12-12-1985; that Mohinder Pal, Secretary was also sitting near the Cashier in the Bank Branch, Kundal; that the Secretary, Mohinder Pal made the entry in the pass book of the member, Sh. Gurdev Singh son of Prithi Singh and signed against the entry in pass book. He further stated that during the audit of the Society, it was found that the documents showing the account of Sh. Prithi Singh, Account No. 120 was missing from the loan ledger; that on the other hand, there was a cutting in the Cash Book in the entry where the amount of Rs. 4662.00 shown deposited in the name of Gurdev Singh and that, therefore, it is evident that the Cashier Surinder Kumar Batra intentionally removed the document from the loan ledger and also made cutting in the Cash Book maintained by him and embezzled the amount of Rs. 4662.00 and Branch Manager, Raj Kumar is also guilty for not maintaining the correct accounts of the Bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that the Assistant Registrar had asked the Police to register a criminal case against the employees of the Society and not against the petitioners and that, therefore, there is no complaint against the petitioners before the Investigating Officer. He has further submitted that the amount shown against Surinder Kumar Batra has already been recovered from the loanee, as is evident from the certificate issued by the President of the Society, dated 3/08/1989. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that so far as the advancement of loan is concerned, the same was required to be advanced by the employees of the bank and maximum credit limit of the loanee was duly sanctioned by the Society after due verification. He has further argued that in the present case, the amount in dispute was within the maximum credit limit of the loanee and the loan was rightly advanced as per rules; that there is no specific allegation of forgery against the petitioners; that no allegation of any lapse on their part in performing their duties has been alleged by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies; that the amount mentioned against the name of the petitioners has already been recovered from the original loanees and in some cases, the Arbitration awards have already been passed either against the employees of the Society or against the loanees and the same are under challenge by way of appeal or revision from which it is clear that the case is of a civil nature and no criminal proceedings could be initiated against the petitioners. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Harbhagwan Dass v. State of Punjab, 1983 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 156.