AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the informant.
This application has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. bearing Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this F.I.R. has been lodged maliciously due to reason that earlier this petitioner had filed a case for initiating a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. against the informant of the case and due to that reason the petitioner has filed the present case. He further submits that as per the F.I.R. it appears that only allegation has been levelled against him that he has not handed over the record of the Society to the informant and, as such, no occurrence is made out. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 45 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1945 and submitted that the institution of such case is barred and F.I.R. can not be lodged. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 45A of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act says that no prosecution can be lodged. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers a Notification, which is kept as Annexure-1 to the petition and says that no such prosecution can be lodged without permission of the Co-operative Registrar. On these grounds he has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant while referring the F.I.R. Submits that on perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that it is not only case for non-handing over of the documents, but the F.I.R. also indicates regarding the allegation of misappropriation of the funds and, as such, it may not be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the State also supports the stand of the informant.
Without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that without pendency of a proceeding before the court below the petitioner is not at liberty to make a prayer for quashing of F.I.R. while invoking jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to satisfy the court as to whether after registering the F.I.R. the police has submitted chargesheet in this case, and without submission of chargesheet it is difficult to come to the conclusion that any proceeding is pending before the court below. In absence of any proceeding being pending before a court, I am of the view that one is not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. For invoking the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. it is primarily necessary to satisfy the court that abuse of process has been done In absence of pendency of any proceeding before the court one may not be allowed to invoke this jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In this case, at the moment, only F.I.R. was lodged which discloses commission of cognizable offence. This Court is unable to grant any relief to this petitioner. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by earlier order, the petitioner was granted provisional bail by this Court and repeatedly the period of provisional bail was extended.
Since the petition has already been rejected, I do not think that there is any need to pass further orders regarding the extension or confirmation of the provisional bail. Moreover, there is specific provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, either regular or anticipatory. I may restrain myself to assume the jurisdiction u/s 438 Cr.P.C. while entertaining a petition which obviously has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly this petition stands dismissed.