Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Kachchh District Central Co-Operative ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 October, 2018

Author: A.J.Desai

Bench: A.J.Desai

        R/SCR.A/1870/2018                             ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1870 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1872 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1873 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1874 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1876 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1878 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1879 of 2018
                            With
        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1881 of 2018
==========================================================
     KACHCHH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THR.
           SENIOR OFFICER DEEPAK BHIMJI KATARIYA
                           Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MS.M.D. MEHTA, APP for the RESPONDENT (s) No.1 in SCR.A. Nos.1870,
1872, 1873 and 1878 of 2018
MS.M.K. THAKKAR, APP for the RESPONDENT (s) No.1 in SCR.A.
Nos.1874, 1876, 1879 and 1881 of 2018
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                              Date : 08/10/2018
                            COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. The affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent  No.2 in each petitions is taken on record.

2. Rule.  Learned   APP   for   the   respondent­State   as  well   as   Mr.Dipen   Desai,   learned   Advocate   for   the  respondent No.2 waives service of rule.

3. With   the   consent   of   the   learned   Advocates  Page 1 of 5 R/SCR.A/1870/2018 ORDER appearing for the respective parties the matters are  taken up for final hearing.

4. By way of these petitions under Article 226 and  227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   read   with   Section  482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   the  petitioner has prayed as under: ­  "(A)   That   the   Hon'ble   Court   be   pleased   to   issue a writ of certiorary or a writ in the   nature of certiorary or any other appropriate   writ, order or direction quashing and setting   aside   the   order   dated   14.06.2016   passed   by  the   learned   Principal   Civil   Judge   and   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Naliya­ Kachchh, in criminal case nos.21, 26, 25, 28,  32, 31, 29 and 23 of 2014 respectively.

(B)   That   pending   the   hearing   and   final   disposal  of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS  may  be   pleased   to   stay   operation   of   the   order   dated   14.06.2016   passed   by   the   learned   Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate   First   Class,   Naliya­Kachchh,     in   criminal   case nos.21, 26, 25, 28, 32, 31, 29 and 23 of   2014 respectively (C) For ad­interim relies in terms of prayer   (B) above;"

5. Short facts arises from the record as under: ­ 
6. That   the   petitioner   is   registered   as   a   co­ operative society bank and is functioning as per Co­ operative   Societies   Act   and   Rules   and   the   Banking  Regulation   Act   and   acting   as   a   regular   bank   i.e.  giving   loans   to   co­operative   societies   who   are  registered members of the bank itself.
Certain   loans   were   disbursed   to   co­operative  societies in the year 2007­2008. The amount which was  paid   by   the   petitioner   was   to   be   disbursed   by   co­ Page 2 of 5 R/SCR.A/1870/2018 ORDER operative   societies   to   its   members.   However,   the  members did not pay any loan amount and it was found  on inquiry that many members in whose name money was  released by co­operative societies have expired long  back. Therefore, criminal complaints came to be filed  by the respondent No.2. The said complaint was filed  before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge and  Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Naliya­   Kuchchh.  Since the petitioner did not receive the loan amount  from   the   respondent  co­operative   societies,  he   made  an   application   /   complaint   against   respondent   co­ operative   societies   for   the   alleged   offences  punishable   under   Sections   403,   406,   408,   409,   420465467468471120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.  The   complaint   was   made   to   the   Inspector   General   of  Police, Kuchchh District.
7. The State of Gujarat found the case serious one,  and  therefore,   C.I.D.   (Crime   and   Railway),   Economic  Offence   Cell,   Gandhinagar   was   handed   over   the  investigation.   Accordingly,   the   investigation  started.   The   respondent­accused   submitted   an  application   before   the   Court   of   learned   Judicial  Magistrate First Class, Naliya­Kuchchh in the form of  complaint for staying of the investigation which was  being made pursuant to the application given by the  present   petitioner.   By   the   impugned   orders   of   the  learned   Magistrate   dated   14.06.2016,   the  investigation was stayed. Hence, this petition.    
8. Mr.Darshan   M.   Varandani,   learned   Advocate   for  Page 3 of 5 R/SCR.A/1870/2018 ORDER the   petitioner   would   submit   that   the   learned  Magistrate has committed great error in staying the  investigation   which   is   being   made   by   the     C.I.D.  (Crime   and   Railway),   Economic   Offence   Cell,  Gandhinagar   with   regard   to   disbursement   of   loan   to  the respondent No.2. He would submit that even before  passing   order   the   petitioner   bank   was   not   given   an  opportunity   of   hearing   and   the   impugned   order   is  passed   without   hearing   the   prosecution.   He   would  submit   that   the   learned   Magistrate   has   no   power   to  stay   the   investigation.   Hence,   the   petitions   be  allowed.
9. On   the   other   hand,   learned   Advocate   Mr.Dipen  Desai   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.2  would   submit   that   the   co­operative   societies   itself  were   defrauded   by   those   persons   to   whom   loans   were  disbursed. He would therefore submitted that there is  no need for separate investigation qua the complaint  submitted by the petitioner. He would further submit  that   the   impugned   orders   passed   by   the   learned  Magistrate   is   just   and   proper  and   as   such,   the  present petitions are required to be dismissed. 
10. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for  the   respective   parties.   Perused   the   application   /  complaint   submitted   by   the   petitioner   to   the  concerned police officer in which several allegations  have   been   made   against   the   office   bearers   of  respondent   co­operative  societies.   I   have   also   gone  through the impugned order. I have also gone through  Page 4 of 5 R/SCR.A/1870/2018 ORDER the complaint against those persons to whom loan was  alleged to have been disbursed.
11. In my opinion, while passing the impugned order,  learned   Trial   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in  staying the  investigation which is being made by the  State   of   Gujarat   and   C.I.D.   (Crime   and   Railway),  Economic Offence Cell, Gandhinagar. The learned Trial  Court   ought   to   have   considered   the   seriousness   of  complaint which was filed against the members of the  respondent   co­operative   society   and   investigation  which   was   ordered   to   be   carried   out   and   therefore,  the   learned   Trial   Court   should   not   have   stayed  further   investigation.   Hence,   the   said   Orders   are  required to be quashed and set aside.   
12. Hence,  I   am   of   the   opinion   that,  the   present  petitions   require   consideration   and   the   same   are  allowed.   The   Orders   dated   14.06.2016   passed   by   the  learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate  First Class, Naliya­Kuchchh  in criminal case nos.21,  26, 25, 28, 32, 31, 29 and 23 of 2014 respectively  are   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   concerned  Police   Officer   who   is   investigating   the   case   shall  carry   out   further   investigation   in   accordance   with  the law. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.    
Office   is   directed   to   place   the   copy   of   this  order in each connected petitions.
(A.J.DESAI, J) RAVI PATEL Page 5 of 5