Date of judgment:
July 20, 2021
Judges:
Indira Banerjee, J.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Parties:
Petitioner: A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Respondent: RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS.
Subject:
Whether the High Court can stay proceedings and pass interim protection orders under Section 482 of the CrPC?
Overview
- The Association/petitioner filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the respondents 1 and 3.
- The Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for the police to hold an investigation and after the completion of the investigation, the police filed 2 FIRs.
- The accused were described as i) Presently Chairman and erstwhile Senior Vice Chairman; (ii) Managing Director and CEO; and (iii) Presently Vice Chairman and erstwhile Chairman of A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank.
- The offences complained by the petitioner were under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B IPC.
- Just after the registration of complaints, the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court to quash the complaints and they sought an interim stay of all further proceedings.
- After hearing the respondents, the High Court passed an order granting a stay of all further proceedings in both the complaints.
- It is against this order of the High Court the petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
- The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the High Court should not have stayed the proceedings as there was prima facie commission of the cognizable offence.
- He also submitted that the High Court faulted in stating that some of the allegations were arbitrable under Section 84 of the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
- The counsel for the respondents submitted that the Supreme Court would not normally interfere in the interim order passed by the High Court when the matter is pending.
Judgment Analysis
- The Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed the facts of the case from the beginning stating the criminal principle that circumstances don’t lie.
- The facts of the case show that the contention was about the election process of the Board of Directors that had to take place in the Cooperative bank and the issue was the voter list was bogues and the returning officer had exercised his power arbitrarily.
- Several writ petitions were filed challenging the actions of the returning officer in stopping the process of counting votes and seeking a direction to declare the results.
- The Bench noted that the petitioner Association, which came into existence in 2019, was started with the grievance relating to the elections and the creation of certain posts and that they already apprehended that the elections will not be held fairly.
- The Court noted that it was obvious that the petitioner started a dispute first against the conferment of the title of Chairman Emeritus on the 1st Respondent, through a writ petition and later, allegations related to loan fraud were added by the petitioner.
- After observing the acts of the petitioner, the Court stated that an election dispute was being converted into a criminal case, and sometimes persons raise such dispute to hide their real motives, but the petitioner was unable to do that successfully, as the election dispute came to Court first, before the petitioner could use the allegations of loan fraud.
- Confirming with the contentions of counsel for the respondents, the Court stated that according to Neeharika Case, the High Court can pass an interim order to stay the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC petitions by giving reasons in exceptional cases. Therefore the impugned order doesn't stand against the law laid down in Neeharika.
- The Court stated that it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that the High Court was influenced by the pendency of civil writ proceedings, as the High Court looked into the entire proceedings that took place from February 2020 to February 2021 and after that gave its judgment.
Conclusion
Concluding the judgment, the Bench held that the High Court was correct in granting interim protection to the respondents and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
