LexK. ASHOKA versus N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,., ) [2009] 5 S.C.R. 961 K. ASHOKA A v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. ~ (Criminal Appeal Nos. 733-734 of 2009) .. APRIL 15, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Complaint alleging offence u!s. 420134 /PC - By Director of Housing Co- operative Society- Against office bearers of Society - On the c basis of report of Registrar of Co-operative Society - Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence - High Court ~ quashing the proceeding on the grounds that the Director had ~ no locus standi to lodge the complaint and that a/legations ' were imaginary - On appeal, held: Quashing of the D proceedings not correct - Prima facie, the a/legations make out a case against the accused - Complainant as a member of the Society had the locus standi to file the complaint - Offences under Cooperative Societies Act as well as /PC made out - If an offence u/s. 109 of the Act is made out, there E is no bar u/s. 111 of the Act on a court to take cognizance of an offence under any other Statute - Kamataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - ss. 109 and 111. ·-A_ Appellant (Director of a House Building Co-operative Society) filed a complaint against the respondents (the F office bearers of the Society) before Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies alleging that the respondents allotted a site to a person at a much less price than its market price and made illegal gain. He sought investigation into the G matter. Enquiry Report was against the respondents. On ; ¥ the basis of the report, appellant filed a complaint u/s. 200 ~ Cr.P.C. in respect of commission of offence u/s. 420/34 IPC. Magis,trate took cognizance of the offence. l 961 H 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R. ,_ A Respondents filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings. High Court allowed the same. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court B HELD:1. The High Court in exercise of its inherent ~ jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash a criminal proceeding inter alia in the event the allegations made in the complaint petition even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety does not c disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The primary allegation against the respondents in the complaint petition make out an offence not only under the provisions of Section 109 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, but also other offences. [Paras 11 D and 13] [970-C, F] 1 Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 sec 736, referred to. E 2. Section 109 of the Act provides for commission of offences under the said Act. Therein, no statutory embargo has been placed for a court to take cognizance of an offence under the provisions of IPC. If the allegations made in the complaint petition or in the first information report make out a case under IPC, Section 111 ~ . F of the Act, would constitute no bar for maintenance thereof being applicable only in respect of offences committed under the Act. The said statutory interdict therefore cannot be extended in regard to commission of an offence under any other Act. [Para 18] [974-H; 975-A- G BJ 3. Whether the allegations made in the complaint 1 ' petition are correct or not have to be considered during trial. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded H inter alia on the premise that the appellant has no locus K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 963 >.> .) standi. It may be true that the allottee and the subsequent A purchaser of the plot had not been impleaded as accused but that by itself may not be a ground for ··quashing the order of cognizance taken against the respondents. If the role played by them in regard to that part of the conspiracy is only to make the allottee a B member.and got the land allotted in his name by way of camouflag~. appellant as a member of the society had a locus standito file a complaint. [Para 15] [972-F·G] 4. The High Court is not correct to opine that no c document has been produced by the appellant to show that the allottee made an assignment of the land in favour · of the purchaser. Evidently, no document can be produced for the purpose of showing that the actual ....;. amount of consideration for the said transaction amounted to Rs.28,00,000/- although ostensibly the D ~ amount of Rs.10,20,000/- has been shown to be amount of consideration in the reg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.