This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for records in S.T.C.No.1152 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani and quash the same.
2.It is averred in the petition that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 48 of the Societies Registration Act, 1975 read with 174 of I.P.C. and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Palani in S.T.C.No.1152 of 2010. The allegation made in the complaint is that the respondent was appointed as Enquiry Officer as per the orders of the District Registrar, Palani dated 14.05.2010. As Enquiry Officer, the second respondent sent summons to the petitioners herein on 17.05.2010, asking them to appear on 26.05.2010. But, they failed to appear and gave evasive replies. Therefore, he filed a report to the District Registrar and pursuant to that, the present complaint has been filed and the case was taken on file by the Court.
3.The respondent had not followed the provisions under Section 36(1) of the Societies Registration Act and already cases are pending before this Court and therefore, the petitioners are not obliged to appear before the respondent for enquiry. The order of the District Registrar appointing Enquiry Officer under Section 36(1) of the Act has been made without following the procedure laid down under Section 36(1) of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate failed to follow the provisions under
Sections 200 and
201 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1152 of 2010 is liable to be quashed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the District Registrar without following the provisions of 36(1) of the Act, issued orders appointing the second respondent as Enquiry Officer and that cases have also been pending before this Court with respect to interference of District Registrar into the affairs of petitioners' Society and therefore, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1152 of 2010 as against the petitioners is to be quashed.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent, per contra, contends that without challenging the order passed by the District Registrar, appointing the Enquiry Officer, the petitioners cannot now contend that they are not liable to obey the summons issued by the Enquiry Officer. He further contends that pendency of a case before the High Court is not a bar to proceed with by the District Registrar in accordance with law and therefore, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.S.T.C.No.1152 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate with respect to disobedience of summons issued by the Enquiry Officer. Disobedience of summons issued by the Enquiry Officer attract the offence under Section 48 of the Societies Registration Act and also under
Section 174 of I.P.C. It is seen from the records that as per the order of the District Registrar dated 14.05.2010, the respondent has been appointed as Enquiry Officer under Section 36(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The contention of the petitioners that the District Registrar has not followed the procedure as laid down under Section 36 of the Act, in appointing the Enquiry Officer is not sustainable as the order of appointment is not under challenge here.
7. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not obliged to appear before the respondent, pursuant to the summons, as already cases pertaining to the interference of District Registrar with the affairs of petitioners' Society are pending before this Court. Unless there is stay, pendency of cases before the High Court is not a bar for appearance. The petitioners though filed interim order of this Court in a writ petition dated 15.05.2009, they have neither filed the copy of writ petition nor the status report with the copy of order of stay, if any. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners is not sustainable.
8.For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal original petition fails. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palani.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..