caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Ap Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank … vs Ramesh Kumar Bung on 20 July, 2021Author: Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee
Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPEME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3869 OF 2021
A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN
BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION … PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE (CRIMINAL) NO. 3875 OF 2021
JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Challenging an order passed by the High Court for the State of
Telangana in two interlocutory applications granting stay of all
Signature Not Verified
further proceedings including the arrest of the Respondents 1 to 3
Digitally signed by
SUNIL KUMAR
Date: 2021.07.20
13:39:46 IST
Reason:
herein (petitioners before the High Court), pending two main
2
petitions for quashing the criminal complaints in Crime Nos. 218
and 222 of 2021 of Banajara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, the de
facto complainant, has come up with these Special Leave Petitions.
2. We have heard Shri Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Niranjan
Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 herein.
3. The petitioner herein filed two complaints on the file of the III
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the
Respondents 1 to 3 herein on 19.02.2021. The learned Magistrate
passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, directing the police to register cases and take up
investigation, pursuant to which, the Police registered two First
Information Reports (FIR for short) in Crime Nos. 218 and 222 of
2021 respectively on 12.03.2021 and 13.03.2021.
4. The Respondents 1 to 3 herein who were the accused in those
two complaints were described in those two complaints respectively
as (i) Presently Chairman and erstwhile Senior Vice Chairman;
(ii) Managing Director and CEO; and (iii) Presently Vice Chairman
3
and erstwhile Chairman of A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank.
The offences complained of by the petitioner against the
Respondents 1 to 3 herein were under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 477A read with 120B IPC. It is necessary to take note at
this stage that the Cooperative Bank involved is actually a multi
state cooperative society governed by the MultiState Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002.
5. Immediately after the registration of the complaints, the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed two petitions in Criminal
Petition Nos. 2370 and 2371 of 2021 under Section 482 of the Code
seeking to quash the criminal complaints. Pending disposal of the
criminal complaints, the Respondents 1 to 3 herein sought interim
stay of all further proceedings including their arrest, in FIR Nos.
218 and 222 of 2021.
6. The applications for stay in I.A. Nos. 1 and 1 of 2021 were
hotly contested by the petitioner herein, as the petitioner was
arrayed as the second respondent in the quash petitions.
7. After hearing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein (persons accused)
and the petitioner herein (de facto complainant), the High Court
4
passed a reasoned order on 27.04.2021 granting stay of all further
proceedings in both the complaints. It is against the said order that
the petitioner has come up with the above SLPs.
8. Briefly and broadly, the reasons provided by the learned Judge
of the High Court for granting stay of further proceedings in the
complaints are as follows:
(i) That while one of the two complaints relates to ‘loan
fraud’, the other relates to ‘voter fraud’;
(ii) That the term of office of the Board of Directors of
the Cooperative Bank expired in April, 2020 and the
election process that was set in motion in March,
2020 culminated in the holding of elections on
20.12.2020;
(iii) That there was a huge acrimony surrounding the
elections, leading to the filing of a batch of writ
petitions both before and after the conduct of
elections;
(iv) That there was an overlapping of the allegations
relating to ‘loan fraud’ and ‘voter fraud’ in the writ
petitions also, challenging or supporting the election
process;
5
(v) That in the said batch of writ petitions, another
learned Judge of the same High Court had passed a
common order on 08.01.2021, directing the results
of the election to be declared and the newly elected
Board to take charge but directing the newly elected
Directors not to take policy decisions until further
orders;
(vi) That even before the registration of the FIRs in
March, 2021 the police issued a notice under
Section 91 Cr.PC to the Manager of the Bank asking
him to preserve the CCTV footage of a particular
period, which was clearly in violation of the
mandate of law; and
(vii) That the allegations of ‘voter fraud’ and ‘loan fraud’
are interrelated to the issues raised in the writ
petitions and that therefore further proceedings in
the criminal complaints are liable to be stayed.
9. Assailing the said order of the learned Judge, it was contended
by Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for petitioner:
(i) That the High Court should not have stayed further
proceedings, when on a plain reading of the
complaints, cognizable offences are prima facie
made out, especially in the teeth of the law laid
down by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure
6
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Others1 and
Skoda Auto Volkswagon India Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of U.P.2;
(ii) That the impugned order is clearly contrary to the
decisions of this Court in Mohd. Allauddin Khan
vs. State of Bihar & Ors.3 and K. Jagdish vs.
Udaya Kumar GS4 in as much as it holds the
pendency of civil writ petitions relating to voter
fraud, as having any bearing upon the criminal
complaints; and
(iii) That the High Court was in error in thinking that
some of the allegations pertained to disputes
arbitrable under Section 84 of MultiState
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and that such a
view is in the teeth of the decision of this Court in
N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Unique
Flame Ltd.5
10. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner took us
through all the documents including the pleadings in the writ
petitions, the interim order passed in the writ petitions, the various
complaints made to the police as well as the Reserve Bank of India
1 (2021) SCC Online SC 315
2 (2020) SCC Online SC 988
3 (2019) 6 SCC 107
4 (2020) 14 SCC 552
5 (2021) SCC Online SC 13
7
and the way the State treated those complaints. He also drew our
attention to various passages in the decisions of this Court in
Neeharika (supra) and made a passionate appeal that heavens will
certainly fall if the stay granted by the High Court is not vacated.
11. In response, Messrs. Siddharth Luthra and Niranjan Reddy,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued:
(i) That normally this Court would not interfere with
an interim order passed by the High Court when the
main matter is pending adjudication before the High
Court;
(ii) That what is taken exception to in Neeharika
(supra) is the tendency of courts to pass innocuous
orders, not to take coercive steps and that too
without assigning any reasons; and
(iii) That in the case on hand the High Court had more
justifiable reasons than one to grant a stay and
such reasons are also recorded by the learned
Judge and that the tendency to foist criminal
complaints at the time of elections can be taken
note of by courts whenever a challenge is made to
the initiation of the prosecution.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and also gone
through pleadings and documents. Before we proceed to consider
8
the rival contentions, it is necessary to take note of the sequence of
events that preceded the lodging of the FIRs, as they throw some
light on the first principle of Criminal Law that “witnesses may lie,
9
but circumstances may not”. The sequence is as follows:
(i) The term of office of the erstwhile Board of Directors
of the Cooperative Bank was to expire in April, 2020
and hence a Returning Officer was appointed in
February, 2020. An election notification was issued
on 18.03.2020 but it was withdrawn after COVID
19 struck;
(ii) A final voters list was issued on 17.11.2020 followed
by a fresh election notification on 24.11.2020;
(iii) The 1st respondent herein was the Senior Vice
Chairman and the 3rd respondent herein was the
Chairman in the erstwhile Board of Directors. The
2nd respondent was the Managing Director and
CEO;
(iv) Immediately after the election notification dated
24.11.2020 was issued, the petitioner herein filed a
writ petition on 30.11.2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of
2020, praying for a declaration that the proposed
conduct of elections based on a bogus voters list
dated 17.11.2020 was illegal and contrary to the
provisions of the MultiState Cooperative Societies
Act, 2002, as well as certain provisions of the
Banking Regulation Act, on account of the
illegalities committed by the then Board of
Directors. Pending their Writ Petition No. 21795 of
10
2020, the petitioner herein sought two interim
reliefs in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020, respectively for
(i) the conduct of a thorough investigation with the
help of police/investigation agencies and to bring
the culprits before law; and (ii) stay of operation of
the bogus voters list.
(v) Though the aforesaid writ petition was filed on
30.11.2020, the elections were held as scheduled on
20.12.2020. The counting of votes began on
21.12.2020, but halfway through, the Returning
Officer decided to stop the counting of votes, for
reasons not decipherable now and in any case not
necessary for the present dispute;
(vi) Therefore, few more writ petitions came to be filed
by certain individuals including the 1st Respondent
herein. The details of those writ petitions are as
follows:
W.P.No. Filed By Prayer Made
23849/202 Srinivas Asawa Challenging the action of the
0 Returning Officer in stopping
the process of counting of
votes and seeking a direction
to declare the results
23853/202 Ramesh Kumar do
0 Bung (1st RR)
23869/202 Shrikant Inani do
0
23976/202 Shaligram Dhoot Challenging the action of the
0 and Mala Dhoot Returning Officer in
conducting the elections in an
arbitrary manner and seeking
11
fresh elections
(vii) The applications praying for interim relief in all the
aforesaid writ petitions were taken up together by
another learned Judge of the High Court. After
hearing elaborate arguments, the learned Judge
passed a common order dated 08.01.2021 in all the
Interim Applications in those writ petitions. The
operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
“(i) I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No. 23853, I.A. No. 1 of
2020 in W.P. No. 23869 and I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.
No. 23849 of 2020 are ordered and the Returning
Officer is directed to announce the result of the
election held on 20.12.2020;
ii) in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020,
issue notice, returnable by 02.02.2020;
iii) I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020 is
filed praying to stay the operation of bogus voters list
dated 17.11.2020. for the reasons stated above,
petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the
interlocutory Application I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P.
No. 21795 of 2020 is dismissed;
iv) In I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No. 23976 of 2020
petitioners are praying to suspend the declaration of
results of the election. For the reasons stated above,
petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought in the
Interlocutory Application. I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P. No.
23976 of 2020 is dismissed;
v) I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 23976 of 2020 is
filed to direct the 4th respondent Bank to conduct re
election to the posts of Directors. Unless the Court
holds that the election process undertaken by the
Returning Officer is vitiated, Court cannot direct re
election. Therefore, prayer sought in this Interlocutory
Application cannot be granted at this stage. I.A. No. 2
of 2020 in W.P. No. 21976 of 2020 is dismissed;
12
vi) Until further orders, the newly elected Directors
are directed not to take policy decisions affecting the
affairs of the society and the bank, including dealing
with the funds of the society except for attending to
day to day needs of the Society and the Bank and
payment of salaries and allowances of the staff.”
(viii) Challenging one portion of the common order dated
08.01.2021 forbidding the newly elected directors
from taking any policy decisions, the Management
of the Bank filed two writ appeals in W.A. No. 21
and 22 of 2021. Upon being informed that the writ
petitions were listed for hearing on 09.02.2021, the
Division bench disposed of the writ appeals by an
order dated 21.01.2021, granting opportunity to the
Management of the Bank to move an appropriate
application before the learned Judge seeking
necessary clarification;
(ix) Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Division
Bench, the 2nd Respondent moved applications for
clarification, but later chose to withdraw the same;
(x) On 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021, (a few days before
the learned Judge passed the common interim order
in the writ petitions), the petitioner Association
claims to have sent by post, a complaint to the
police;
(xi) Thereafter, on 22.01.2021, the petitioner admittedly
moved the Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture,
Marketing and Cooperation, Government of
13
Telangana, with a petition regarding the inaction on
the part of the police on the complaints allegedly
sent by post on 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021. On the
petition so given by the petitioner herein, the
Hon’ble Minister issued a direction to the
Commissioner of Police on 22.01.2021 to the
following effect:
“Enclosed are the complaints wherein serious
allegations are made of commission of cognizable
offences. Kindly get both the FIRs registered and
investigation be carried out immediately. Copies of
FIRs be forwarded to Government within two days.”
(xii) On 03.02.2021, the petitioner herein filed a fresh
writ petition in W.P. No. 2724 of 2021 with the
following main and interim prayers:
“MAIN PRAYER:
In light of the extraordinary facts and circumstances
above, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased
to pass a writ of mandamus or an order(s)/
direction(s) of the nature of mandamus:
(i) Directing Respondent No. 2 to suspend the
Board of Directors of Respondent 5 Bank and
appoint an administrator (as has also been
recommended by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent
No. 2 vide letter No. 6392/CoopI/A2/2020 dated
23.12.20) in view of the serious allegations of inter
alia largescale money siphoning, fraud, falsification
of documents and forging of records done by
Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8, in
conspiracy with Respondent No. 6, which acts are
gravely prejudicial to the interest of both the Society
as well as its members, contrary to the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and Bye laws of
Respondent No. 5, for which cognizable offences
Respondent No. 4 has directed Commissioner of
Police, Hyderabad to register two FIRs and carry out
investigation immediately;
14
(ii) Directing Respondent No. 3 to carry out a
forensic audit of the bank as recommended vide
letter No. 6392/CoopI/A2/2020 dated 23.12.20 of
Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 2, which has
informedly been recommended onward by
Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3;
(iii) Directing Respondent No. 3 for removal of
Respondent No. 6 as the MD & CEO of Respondent
No. 5 Bank in view of the serious allegations against
him of inter alia largescale money siphoning, frauds,
falsification of documents, forging of records of
Respondent No. 5 Bank, done in conspiracy with
Respondent Nos. 7 and 8;
(iv) pass any other orders/directions deemed just
and reasonable to protect the interests of thousands
of small investors of the Bank in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
INTERIM PRAYERS: For the reasons stated
hereinabove, pending disposal of the writ petition,
the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court,
in light of the extraordinary facts and circumstances
above, may graciously be pleased to:
(i) ad interim suspend the Boards of Directors of
Respondent No. 5 bank, appoint a Retired Supreme
Court/High Court Judge as an administrator of
Respondent No. 5, during the pendency of the writ
petition or Respondent No. 2 acting upon
representation No. 6392/CoopI/A2/2020 dated
23.12.20 forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to
Respondent No. 2 or representation of Petitioner
dated 17.01.21 to Respondent No. 3, whichever is
earlier, so as to secure the proper management of the
Bank and to prevent causing irreparable harm to the
interest of the small depositors of the Petitioner
association, in view of the serious allegations of
largescale money siphoning, fraud, falsification of
documents, forging of records of Respondent No. 5,
by Respondent No. 6 in conspiracy with Respondent
No. 7 and Respondent No. 8, which criminal offences
of serious fraud are under police investigation; or in
the alternative, suspend Respondent No. 6 and
appoint a retired Managing Director of any Public
Sector Undertaking Bank as an ad interim MD and
CEO of the Respondents No. 5 bank, until
Respondent No. 2 has acted upon the Petitioner’s
15
representation dated 17.01.21 or during the
pendency of this petition, whichever is earlier; and
(ii) until further orders direct that the newly
elected Directors to not to take any policy decisions
affecting the affairs of the society and the bank,
including dealing with the funds of the society except
for attending to the day to day needs of the Society
and the Bank and payment of salaries and
allowances to the staff, as already directed by this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.01.21 in CWP No.
21795/2020 filed by the Petitioner, which is sub
judice; and pass any other orders/directions deemed
just and reasonable to protect the interests of
thousands of small investors of the Bank in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
(xiii) On 05.02.2021 the High Court ordered notice before
admission in W.P. No. 2724 of 2021 but did not
grant any interim order;
(xiv) By coincidence or otherwise, the Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, who was nominated to be the
Returning Officer for the conduct of the elections,
was also issued with a charge memo on the very
same day namely 03.02.2021, the date on which the
petitioner filed their second writ petition in W.P. No.
2725 of 2021. Contending that the charge memo
was the product of the handiwork of certain
disgruntled elements, the Returning Officer filed a
writ petition in W.P. No. 3679 of 2021. On
22.02.2021, the High Court granted interim stay of
further proceedings pursuant to the charge memo;
(xv) In the meantime, the petitioner lodged two
complaints on the file of the III Additional Chief
16
Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.02.2021, one of them
revolving around allegations about the grant of
loans and the other revolving around allegations
relating to voter fraud.
(xvi) The learned Magistrate passed an order under
Section 156(3) of the Code, pursuant to which, the
police registered an FIR bearing No.218 of 2021 on
12.03.2021 and an FIR bearing No.222 of 2021 on
13.03.2021;
(xvii) Praying for quashing of these two complaints, the
Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Criminal Petition
Nos. 2370 and 2371 of 2021. The Respondents 1 to
3 impleaded the petitioner herein as 2 nd Respondent
in those quash petitions. According to the
petitioner, the learned Judge heard arguments in
the petitions for interim stay pending the quash
petitions and reserved orders on 23.03.2021. It is
claimed by the petitioner that thereafter they filed
counter affidavits to the criminal petitions on
01.04.2021. It is further claimed by the petitioner
that thereafter they also filed a memo on
15.04.2021 enclosing a copy of the judgment of this
Court in Neeharika (supra) dated 13.04.2021.
However, the learned Judge passed a common order
granting stay of further proceedings in both the
17
quash petitions, on 27.04.2021. Therefore, the
petitioner has come up with the above SLPs.
13. The above sequence of events would show that the petitioner
herein who was admittedly registered as an Association only in the
year 2019 (as per the averments in Para 2 of W.P.No.21795 of
2020), fired their first salvo, only against the proposed elections, by
filing a writ petition on 30.11.2020. After failing to get any interim
order preventing the Returning Officer from proceeding with the
election, the petitioner indulged in a multipronged attack, by
sending police complaints by post on 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021,
then moving the Hon’ble Minister and getting a direction from him
to the Commissioner of Police on 22.01.2021, thereafter moving a
postelection writ petition in Writ petition No.2724 of 2021 to
prevent the newly elected Board from taking charge and then filing
private complaints before the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
on 19.02.2021 and getting an order under Section 156(3) of the
Code leading to the registration of the FIRs. The complaints lodged
by the petitioner Association, contained allegations relating to the
period 20162019 and 2020, though the association itself was
registered only in 2019.
18
14. It is of interest to note that the petitioner Association which
lawfully came into existence by registering itself as an Association
under the relevant law only in 2019, started off only with a
grievance relating to the elections and the creation of the post of
Chairman Emeritus, at the beginning. It appears that the petitioner
Association moved a writ petition way back in February, 2020 in
W.P. No. 3687 of 2020 expressing an apprehension that elections
will not be conducted fairly. But a learned Judge of the High Court
dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 20.02.2020. As
against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A. No.
154 of 2020 which is stated to be pending.
15. The petitioner has made a passing reference in Paragraph 3 of
their writ petition W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, to the above writ appeal
W.A. No.153 of 2020, which even according to them, related only to
an election dispute.
16. Similarly, the petitioner has made a passing reference to
another writ appeal in W.A.No.141 of 2020 in Para 3 of their writ
petition in W.P.No.21795 of 2020. This, according to the petitioner
Association related to the conferment of the title of Chairman
19
Emeritus on the 1st Respondent herein. The background facts
relating to this writ appeal, are not disclosed by the petitioner fully
in their writ petition.
17. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner started a dispute
first against the conferment of the title of Chairman Emeritus on
the 1st Respondent and then they raised issues with regard to the
proposed elections, first in a writ petition filed in February, 2020
and then in a writ petition filed in November, 2020. It is only
thereafter that the allegations relating to loan fraud were raised by
the petitioner Association. Apparently, the petitioner had the
blessings of the powers that be, which is why a direction was issued
on 22.01.2021 by the Hon’ble Minister, to the Commissioner of
Police to register the complaints and report to the Government.
18. What is important to note, is the fact that in I.A.No.1 of 2020
in W.P.No.21975 of 2020 the petitioner had prayed for a direction to
Respondents 1 to 4 therein (namely the State of Telangana, Central
Registrar, the Returning Officer and the Management of the Bank)
to conduct a thorough investigation with the help of the
police/investigation agencies. The learned Judge who heard this
20
I.A. along with other applications in the connected writ petitions,
merely ordered (on 08.01.2021), notice returnable by 02.02.2021 in
the said application.
19. In the next writ petition W.P.No.2724 of 2021 filed by the
petitioner on 03.02.2021 (after the declaration of results pursuant
to the order of the High Court dated 08.01.2021), the petitioner
again made a prayer for interim relief to suspend the elected Board
on the ground that allegations of large scale money siphoning, fraud
and falsification and forging of documents are under police
investigation. On the date on which W.P.No.2724 of 2021 was filed
namely 03.02.2021, no FIR was pending, but the petitioner was
emboldened to make such a statement in their writ petition, on
account of the endorsement that they were able to secure from the
Hon’ble Minister on 22.01.2021. It is only after failing to secure any
interim order even in the second writ petition that the private
complaints were filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate on
19.02.2021.
20. Therefore, it was patently an election dispute which was
sought to be converted to a criminal case. More often than not
21
election disputes are fought on different turfs, such as polling
booths, police stations and court rooms. Sometimes, persons who
raise these disputes manage to camouflage their real motive by
words clothed in high moral fiber and strong legal content. But
unfortunately, the petitioner could not do it successfully in this
case, as the election disputes came to the court first before the
petitioner could fall back upon allegations of loan fraud.
Fortunately, the High Court saw through the game. This is why the
High Court in its impugned order, granted the extraordinary relief
of stay of further proceedings including the arrest of Respondents 1
to 3 herein. The facts are so glaring and the background setting so
shocking, that the High Court correctly found it to be a fit and
proper case to grant interim reliefs to Respondents 13 herein.
21. Having seen the factual aspects, let us now deal with the three
questions of law on which the learned counsel for the petitioner
sought to raise a high pitch.
22. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing
for Respondents 1 to 3, Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed space
for the High Court to pass an interim order of the nature impugned
22
herein, “in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection,
giving brief reasons”. What is frowned upon in Neeharika (supra)
is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, non
speaking orders reading “no coercive steps shall be adopted”. In
Paragraph 60 of the Report in Neeharika (supra), this Court
recognized that there may be allegations of abuse of process of law,
converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to
pressurize the accused. In the order impugned in these petitions,
the High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the
allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings
concerning allegations of election fraud. Therefore, the impugned
order cannot be said to be bad in the light of Neeharika principles.
23. In fact, Neeharika reiterates the parameters laid down in the
celebrated decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal6. One of
the cardinal principles evolved in Bhajan Lal (supra) found in
paragraph 102 (7) reads as follows:
“where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”
6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
23
In paragraph 37 of the decision in Neeharika, the above
passage from Bhajan Lal is extracted. In fact Bhajan Lal (supra)
took note of the view expressed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan
Paswan vs. State of Bihar7 to the effect “that a criminal
prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate
evidence, does not become vitiated on account of malafides or
political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.” Yet Bhajan
Lal (supra) laid down seven principles in paragraph 102, the last
which we extracted above. The seven principles enunciated in
paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (a twomember Bench) are actually
quoted with approval in Neeharika (a threemember Bench).
24. In fact, one of the interim prayers sought by the petitioner in
the civil writ proceedings is for the conduct of a forensic audit. The
said prayer is pending consideration. Allegations of the nature
projected by the petitioner cannot be taken for their face value
without a forensic audit and the court cannot go by the ipse dixit of
the petitioner.
7 (1987) 1 SCC 288
24
25. It is completely wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend
that the High Court was swayed by the pendency of civil writ
proceedings. The High Court actually took note of the manner in
which the color of the entire proceedings changed from February
2020 to February 2021 and it is in that background that the
learned Judge took note of the pendency of civil proceedings and
the overlapping of allegations. Therefore, the petitioner cannot press
into service the ratio in Mohd. Allauddin Khan (supra) and K.
Jagdish (supra).
26. Even the decision in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
will not go the rescue of the petitioner since the reference in the
impugned order to Section 84 of the Multistate cooperative
Societies Act, 2002 is only for the limited purpose of dealing with
the allegations relating to admission of members.
27. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the High Court
was perfectly justified in granting interim protection to the
Respondents 1 to 3 herein and in ensuring that the supremacy of
the ballot is not sabotaged by the authority of the police. Hence the
SLPs are dismissed. Consequently the applications for stay are
25
dismissed and the stay earlier granted is vacated. The vacate stay
petitions are closed in view of the dismissal of the stay applications.
………………………………..J.
(INDIRA BANERJEE)
………………………………..J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
New Delhi
July 20, 2021
Comments