CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Chaman Lal (accused) has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 73 dated 18.9.1998 registered under Sections 406/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Amargarh; order dated 26.5.2003 passed by the JMIC, Malerkotla, framing the charge against the petitioner under Sections 406/467/468/471 IPC; and the order dated 13.8.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

(2.) In this case, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaints made by Bhagmal Danni and Krishan Kumar Kaushal, who are not the Members of the Governing Body of Managing Committee Mandir Thakur Dawara (Sanatan Dharam, village Bagrian) on the allegations that Mandir Thakur Dawara was owning certain land and a society was constituted by the villagers to run the affairs of the said Mandir. The said society was registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Chaman Lal petitioner was elected as President of the said society. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the funds of the Mandir Thakur Dawara by preparing false bills and receipts. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner and charge was framed against him under Sections 406/467/468/471 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for discharge. The trial Court rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for discharge and after considering the material/evidence collected during the investigation and finding them to be sufficient, framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 406/467/468/471 IPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2003. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it was alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount of the society, which was registered under the Act, for managing the affairs of Mandir Thakur Dawara, no FIR could have been registered against the petitioner as according to Section 21 of the Act, no cognizance of the offence under the Act could have been taken by the court except on a complaint in writing by the Registrar or any other person authorized by him in writing in this behalf. The instant FIR has not been registered on the complaint made by the Registrar or any other person authorized by him. Bhagmal Danni and Krishan Kumar Kaushal filed the instant complaint to the police in their individual capacity. They have no locus standi to file such complaint. Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Palar Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 122.