IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5186/2013 BETWEEN:
S. Nagraj, S/o. Siddappa, Aged about 38 years, Secretary, Bildodde Milk Producers Society, Bildodde, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk & District – 571 511. …Petitioner (By Sri. G.M. Ananda, Advocate for Sri. S.P. Ramesha, Advocate) AND:
1. B.N. Nagaraju, (Milk Producer at Bildodde), S/o. Bairappa, Aged about 38 years, R/o M.G. Palya, Bildodde, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk & District – 571 511.
2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Ramanagara, Ramanagara District – 571 511. ...Respondents (By Sri. B. Roopesha, Advocate of R-1; Sri. Venkatesh S. Arbatti, SPP for R-2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.7/2013 (PCR No.3/2013) registered by respondent No.2 (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Ramanagara) registered for the alleged offences p/u/s 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 465, 468, 477(A) r/w 120(B) of IPC, pending on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and quash all its entire proceedings.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.7/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘P.C. Act’ for brevity) and Sections 465, 468, 477A r/w 120(B) of IPC.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the registration of the above FIR on the ground that the complainant namely respondent No.2 not being the member of the Milk Producers Society has no locus standi to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. Secondly, petitioner is the Secretary of the Milk Producers Society and he is not a “public servant” as defined under P.C. Act, hence, initiation of criminal action for the alleged violations of the provisions of the Act, is not tenable against the petitioner.
3. Both these grounds are misconceived and misplaced. It is trite law that criminal law could be set in motion by any person. It is needless to say that criminal proceedings are not initiated for vindication of private grievance. The purpose and object of criminal law is to maintain law and order in the Society and therefore, any act which runs counter to the interest of the Society at large is made an offence punishable under the general penal statutes or under the special laws and a right is conferred on every citizen to set the machinery of the criminal law into motion to bring the offender to book.
4. In SHEO NANDAN PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & Others in 1987 SCC (1) 288, it is held that, “It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.6798/2007(CS-RES) disposed of on 22.09.2008 with reference to para 3, wherein it is held as under:
“The sanction is accorded under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Before a person could invoke the jurisdiction under the Act he should be a member of the society.”
In the said case, the proceedings initiated before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, were under challenge and in that context, it was held that a non- member could not seek intervention of the authorities constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act, whereas in the instant case the complaint is filed by respondent No.1, who is a milk producer, alleging large scale defalcation of the funds as well as falsification of the records of the Society. The principle laid down in the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
6. Insofar as the second contention urged by the petitioner, Section 2(c)(ix) of the Act provides that:
“any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); is a “Public Servant” under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
7. There are no averments in the petition that the Milk Producers Society in the instant case is not receiving any financial aid from the Central Government or the State Government or from any Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government Company. In the absence of any such averments and without there being any material in this regard, it is premature to hold that the petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of the said provisions. That apart, the FIR is registered not only for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Act, but also under the provisions of IPC. There being specific allegations attracting the offences under the provisions of IPC, registration of FIR and consequent investigation cannot be faulted with. As a result, there is no case to quash the proceedings. For the said reasons, the petition is dismissed.
I.A.No.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed.
Sv/-
Sd/- JUDGE