Pradeep vs Mahadev and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—The above petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belagavi, in the respective petitions, in the interest of justice and equity.

Since the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in all these petitions (in Crl. P. No. 100682/2014 they are respondent Nos. 3 and 4) are one and the same and since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they have been taken together and disposed of by this common order.

Brief facts of the case of the petitioner in all these petitions are that the respective first respondent in the above petitions had lodged complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'' for short) alleging non-payment of the amount of the matured fixed deposit. The said complaints were allowed on 08.12.2011 against the third respondent (4th respondent in Crl. P. No. 100682/2014) Society and Liquidator was ordered to pay the said amount to the complainants in the respective cases of the fixed deposit amount.

The respondent-Society for various reasons was ordered to be liquidated by order of the competent authority and the process of liquidation was underway. In the meanwhile complaints were lodged and the same were proceeded against the then Liquidator Sri R.N. Nooli, who was the Government appointed Liquidator officiating in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, the second respondent. Hence Liquidator appointed was from the Officers under the second respondent. After Sri R.N. Nooli had handed over the charge the petitioner herein who was working as Senior Inspector of Co-Op. Societies was entrusted with the work of Liquidation of the Society. Hence, the petitioner had officiated as the Liquidator of the Society.

Immediately the first respondent in the above petitions initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount under Section 27 of the Act by filing execution petition before the District Forum. Second respondent passed an order dated 24.09.2013 transferring the petitioner herein from Chikkodi to Belgaum and posted Sri G.S. Topannavar as the Liquidator of the Society in place of the petitioner. Petitioner was relieved of his duties from the office of the second respondent to take charge as per promotion and posted to the new posting at Belgaum. The new incumbent did not take charge to the post and hence the petitioner requested the incumbent to take charge and furnish all the papers and proceedings books and requested to proceed further with the liquidation proceedings on 11.10.2013, copy of the letter is as per Annexure-E.

Petitioner took charge at the office of the Joint Registrar of the Co-Op. Societies, Belgaum as per the order of promotion and officiating as the Senior Inspector of Co-Op. Societies, Belgaum from 11.10.2013. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner herein submitted a memo reporting to the District Consumer Forum bringing to the notice of the said Forum stating that the petitioner has been relieved of his duties as the Liquidator and has assumed charge at the next posting as has been officiating to the new post. He also enclosed copies of the orders.

Petitioner had filed an application u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. praying for issuance of the witness summons to the new incumbent of the office of the Liquidator of the Society on 31.01.2014 but the District Forum rejected the application on 31.01.2014 and posted the matter for arguments on 12.02.2014. Petitioner filed an application u/S 245 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner in view of the developments above stated. District Forum without considering the said application rejected the application holding that, at the belated stage the petitioner cannot be discharged. Petitioner had filed W.P. No. 102937/2014 before this Court and initially the Court was pleased to grant an interim order and thereafter writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file the present petition. On this ground the petitioner in all the above petitions sought quashing of the proceedings pending in the execution petitions before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum.

Second respondent filed objection statement by way of affidavit of one Raoji son of Vasant Rao Kulakarm, wherein it is stated that the first respondent lodged complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belagavi. The District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging non-payment of the matured amount and said complaints were allowed. The respondent Society and Liquidator was ordered to pay the said amount in respect of the fixed deposit of the depositors, i.e., the respondent No. 1 herein, in the above petitions.

The petitioner was transferred and promoted as Senior Inspector from Chikkodi to Belagavi. The petitioner was ordered to hand over the charge on 24.09.2013 as per Annexure-R1 and later on he was relieved on 09.10.2013 as per Annexure-R2. But, petitioner did not hand over the charge to the newly appointed Liquidator G.S. Toppannavar, who was appointed as Liquidator in place of the above petitioner as per order dated 24.09.2013 and till now the petitioner has not handed over the charge to the appointed Liquidator. The petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the State Consumer Forum to redress his grievance and inspite of that he wants to avail relief from this Hon''ble Court which is not permissible in law. Hence, sought to dismiss the petition.

I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 though served remained unrepresented.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though earlier the petitioner herein was appointed as Official Liquidator in addition to his regular work but subsequently he has been promoted and transferred to the Divisional office at Belgaum. After getting the proceedings regarding his transfer from Chikkodi to Belgaum, he was relieved of his duties from the office of the second respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that Annexure-D produced in the case clearly goes to show that the petitioner has been relieved of his duties. He further submitted that the petitioner herein informed about his transfer because of the promotion order. He intimated the same to the another official liquidator Sri G.S. Topannavar who had been appointed by the order of the respondent (Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies) and also submitted that the present petitioner requested the said Topannavar to receive charge from him. But, inspite of that the said Topannavar has not at all received charge from the petitioner. In this regard Annexure-E is produced by the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submitted that the present petitioner after his promotion and transfer to the office at Belgaum, one S.M. Tolagi who was in the post was relieved from the Belgaum office on 11.10.2013 and petitioner was asked to take charge in place of Sri S.M. Tolagi. The petitioner has produced the said document as per Annexure-F.

Learned counsel further submitted that, inspite of all these efforts and the request made by the petitioner the said Topannavar has not received charge of the official Liquidator in respect of the respondent-Society. Then he also approached the District Consumer Forum and made an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. requesting the District Forum to issue summons to the said Topannavar, the new official Liquidator. But the said application was rejected. Learned counsel also submitted that, subsequently even the petitioner herein filed an application u/S 245 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the proceedings and that application was also rejected and even he made an effort by filing writ petitions before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. Hence, learned counsel submitted that, when the petitioner has already been promoted and transferred to some other place and there are official proceedings relieving him from the previous post and he has already joined the new post, even then he has not been discharged of his duties as Official Liquidator. Hence, learned counsel submitted that, in case if he is not relieved of his post of official Liquidator, then the execution cases filed by the respondent No. 1-deposit holders will be proceeded with and there is possibility of the conviction of the petitioner herein for no fault of him.''

Learned counsel submitted that, because of these reasons after exhausting all the remedies he has approached this Court by filing the above petitions. Hence, submitted to allow the petitions and to quash the entire proceedings pending before the District Consumer Redressal Forum. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 107495/2014 (CS-RES) dated 01.08.2014.

Per contra learned Govt. Pleader representing respondent No. 2 submitted that even though the present petitioner was asked to hand over the charge and the post of official Liquidator to Sri Topannavar who was appointed as the official Liquidator in place of the present petitioner but the petitioner has not at all handed over the charge to the said Topannavar. The learned Govt. Pleader also submitted that if at all the present petitioner is aggrieved by any orders passed by the District Consumer Protection Redressal Forum, then he is having efficacious remedy to approach the State Consumer Forum under the said Act and without approaching the said Forum the petitioner filed the present petitions which are not maintainable. Hence, he submitted that proceedings cannot be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Learned Govt. Pleader relied upon the following decisions.

"1) AIR 2013 HIMACHAL PRADESH 34;

2) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, "

Hence, sought to dismiss the above petitions

I have perused the petition averments, the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and also perused the grounds urged in the petitions with the annexures produced along with the petition. Some of the facts are undisputed according to both the sides that respondent No. 1 in all the above petitions are depositors filed complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, which complaints were allowed and subsequently invoking Section 27 of the Act the depositors filed execution proceedings as the amount was not paid to them.

The materials goes to show that when respondent No. 1-complainant was examined before the District Forum they were not cross-examined by the respondent No. 3-Society represented by the then official Liquidator Sri R.N. Nooli. Subsequently, in place of Sri R.N. Nooli, the present petitioner was appointed as the official Liquidator as per the additional charge given to him along with his regular work in the office of the respondent No. 2 at Chikkodi. The material also goes to show that subsequently as the present petitioner was promoted and transferred to the Belgaum office and in his place by the order of the respondent No. 2 one Sri G.S. Topannavar has been appointed as the official Liquidator and the present petitioner was asked to hand over the charge to Sri Topannavar. Accordingly, he got relieved himself from his post at Chikkodi office and then he went and joined to his new post at Belgaum.

The annexures produced along with the petition clearly support these contentions. The only grievance of the present petitioner that though he was promoted and transferred to Belgaum and though he was relieved from his post and though requested the new official Liquidator Sri G.S. Topannavar, the said Topannavar has not at all taken charge from him. Hence, it is his grievance before the District Forum as well as before this Court in these petitions that he cannot be held responsible and he cannot be made and continued as a party in the same capacity as official Liquidator in the execution petitions filed by the respondent No. 1 herein.

I have perused the copy of the order passed in the writ petition No. 107495/2014 (CS-RES) dated 01.08.2014. While hearing the said writ petition when it was submitted on behalf of the present petitioner in the said writ petitions when he has already made representation to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the said writ petition as per Annexure-F and G even then no arrangement has been made for relieving him from the post of official Liquidator and his representations were also not considered.

Looking to the submission made, in the above said writ petition this Court directed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to examine the grievance and to take decision in the matter, since no opinion could be expressed on merits or otherwise of the contents of Annexures F and G, the representations made by the petitioner. Even the learned Govt. Pleader also submitted before the Court in the said writ proceedings that he will see that the representations filed by the petitioner will be considered and some arrangements will be made in the matter. With the said order the writ petition was disposed of. But, now it is the contention of the present petitioner that inspite of all these things he has not been relieved from the post of official Liquidator and he is having apprehension that, in case the execution proceedings are proceeded with, then he has to face the punishment going to be imposed on him without there being fault of him.

The above petitions are filed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the execution proceedings pending before the District Consumer Forum. The petitioner has to establish that the proceedings continued against him in the said execution proceedings are abuse of process of law or quashing of the said execution proceedings is to secure the ends of justice. But, looking to the materials placed on record it is the internal dispute between the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner herein. The respondent No. 1-depositors are not at all concerned with the said dispute or the difficulty that has arisen.

It is no doubt true, looking to the documents produced as per Annexure-E, the xerox copy of the letter addressed by the present petitioner, Sri G.S. Topannavar, it is dated 11.10.2013, but whether the said letter has been received by Sri G.S. Topannavar or not, no supporting materials have been produced like the acknowledgement card for having served said notice on the official Liquidator G.S. Topannavar or any other endorsement like he refused to receive the said notice. In the affidavit filed on oath on behalf of respondent it is stated in the said affidavit that the present petitioner has not at all handed over charge to the said Topannavar as pleaded in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the affidavit. Only on the basis of Annexure-E, xerox copy, it cannot be assumed by this Court that he sent the said letter to Sri G.S. Topannavar, it was reached to him and inspite of that he refused to take charge from the present petitioner.

Apart from that, the above petitions were filed on 21.03.2014 with the grievance that he has made in the above petitions but the learned Govt. Pleader also produced copy of the order dated 24.09.2015 issued from the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Chikkodi Sub Division, Chikkodi and perusing this order it goes to show that Sri R.V. Kulkarni, Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Chikkodi Sub Division appointed one Satish V. Musandi, Second Division Assistant of the office of Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Chikkodi, with the additional charge of official Liquidator. In the said order the said Satish V. Musandi, the new official Liquidator was directed that immediately after receiving the said order he has to receive the charge of official Liquidator from the previous official Liquidator Sri P.J. Sagar, i.e., the present petitioner herein and thereafter he has to submit his report.

Looking to the order dated 24.09.2015 the respondent No. 2 has already made arrangements in the matter, appointing another person as the official Liquidator directing him to receive charge from the petitioner herein after receiving the said order and immediately he has to submit his report. But, it is not the case of the petitioner herein that he has approached the said Satish V. Musandi also and he has refused to receive the charge.

It is no doubt true the above petitions are filed much earlier to passing of the order dated 24.09.2015 but at least the petitioner could have filed one affidavit that after passing the said order appointing Satish V. Musandi as the official Liquidator, the petitioner approached him also and he refused to receive charge from him. It is also contention of the respondent No. 2 herein that though it is contended by the petitioner herein that his request to the District Forum to issue summons to Sri G.S. Topannavar by filing application u/s. 311 and his another application filed u/S 245 of Cr.P.C. which were said to have been rejected, the petitioner herein was supposed to approach the State Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Act and he cannot approach this Court by filing the present petitions invoking Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner herein has not at all made out a case that the proceedings initiated in the execution proceedings arraigning him as a party is abuse of process of law or it is necessary to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings can be quashed. Hence, there is no merit in the petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.