(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel has strongly canvassed that since by awards Annexures P-2 and P-3 the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge by the arbitrator in arbitration proceedings, which were initiated under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), therefore, for the same financial liability the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Sections 408/409/465/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code as per FIR Annexure P-1. In support of his contentions he has relied on Kasmira Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) RCR 175; Bant Singh v. The Dulley Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., 1987(2) RCR 435; Harbhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1983(2) RCR 156 and Barjinder Pal v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) RCR 690.
(2.) LEARNED Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, relying on Mrs. Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, AIR 1990 S.C. 494, contended that simply because in the awards Annexures P-2 and P-3 the petitioner has been exonerated by the arbitrator in proceedings held under Section 55 of the Act, he is not absolved of his criminal liability. Hence there is no legal ground to quash the aforementioned FIR.
(3.) IN Barjinder Pal's case (supra) a Single Bench of this High Court considered the provisions of Section 55 of the Act and Section 409 IPC and observed that once the matter is referred to the arbitrator in terms of Section 55 of the Act, it renders the dispute to be of civil nature. FIR under Section 409 IPC was quashed, but still Markfed was allowed to initiate criminal action after finalisation of surcharge proceedings taken against the accused.