Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16 th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 24754 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SHAMSHER SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST KOTA, DABHAURA, DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RAKESH SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
COOPERATIVE MANTRALAYA VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER COOPERATIVE REGISTRAR,
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, REWA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JOINT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,
BLOCK-B, 3RD FLOOR, SHILPI PLAZA, DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, THROUGH
GENERAL MANAGER COLLECTORATE OFFICE
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BRANCH MANAGER, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 11/22/2022
11:49:47 AM
2
BANK MARYADIT, DABHAURA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, R EWA DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION
D A B H A U R A DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT
COOPERATIVE, DISTRICT CENTRAL
COOPERATIVE BANK MARYADIT BANK, REWA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE, CIVIL LINES, E/5(A.B.), REWA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAMESH CHANDRA DIPANKAR S/O SOHALE
DIPANKAR OCCUPATION: BRANCH MANAGER,
DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK
MARYADIT DABHAURA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. RAM KRISHAN MISHRA S/O LATE ARVIND
MISHRA OCCUPATION: BRANCH MANAGER,
CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK MARYADIT
DABHAURA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI S.S.CHAUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 9)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To Summons the entire relevant record from respondents
for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Upon holding that the impugned order dated 30.05.2020
(Annexure P/1) & FIR dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P/13), is
bad in the eye of law: Consequently, quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure P/l) & FIR
dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P/13) are deserves to be set
aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 11/22/2022
11:49:47 AM
(iii) Further the respondent authority be directed not to take
any coercive steps against the petitioner till the final order was
passed by the Court of Joint Registrar in case No. 64/2020-
21/0004. The respondents further be directed to provide the
petitioner tor proper opportunity o hearing and thereafter to
take final decision for the alleged misappropriation of funds.
(iv) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case be given by this Hon'ble Court."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2012-13, he was allotted the
liquor work contract at Dabhaura. He worked with utmost honesty and
sincerity. The Branch Manager of the respondent/Bank was known to the
petitioner. He misused the relations by opening a forged account in the
petitioner's name. The documents were fraudulently obtained by him.
Thereafter, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No.12 of 2015 at Police
Station Dabhaura, District Rewa (M.P.) for defalcation done by the Branch
Manager. The allegation against the petitioner is with regard to defalcation of an
amount to the tune of Rs.41,96,423/-. The enquiry was conducted behind the
back of the petitioner. Several documents and records were seized. The
petitioner was nowhere involved in the matter. However, after completion of the
investigation, the police authorities have filed a charge sheet in the matter. More
than 23 persons were made accused in the case. The defalcation to the tune of
Rs.3,37,84,335/- was pointed out. The petitioner always cooperated in the
investigation but he was taken into custody by the police authorities finding his
involvement in the case. He was enlarged on bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.1299 of 2022 vide order dated 22.08.2022. Another case
was registered by the Bank with respect to the same defalcation amount bearing
Crime No.71 of 2015 at Police Station Dabhaura wherein, the allegation against
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 11/22/2022
11:49:47 AM
the petitioner is for defalcation of an amount to the tune of Rs.9,60,321/-. He
was granted bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 in
SLP (Criminal) No.4021 of 2022. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner while conducting the inquiry, as the petitioner was behind the bars.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami
vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 and has argued that
for the same incident multiple FIRs cannot be registered. After obtaining bail
from Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was released. The authorities with
an ulterior motive have got registered another FIR bearing Crime No.83 of 2022
at Police Station Dabhaura, District Rewa (M.P.) wherein 24 persons were
made accused including the petitioner.
3. It is his case that the entire defalcation is with respect to the same
incident, however, different FIRs have been registered against the petitioner
which is not permissible. He has brought to the notice of this Court another FIR
registered bearing Crime No.85 of 2022 against the Branch Manager and others
including the petitioner. He further submits that as he has been enlarged on bail
after a considerable period by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, registration of
a subsequent FIR bearing Crime No.83 of 2022 is per se illegal. Virtually, there
is no involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is the case of the petitioner
from the very beginning that the forged account has been opened by the Branch
Manager, as he was known to the petitioner, therefore, registration of a
subsequent FIR is per se illegal.
4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the contentions and submitted that the involvement of the petitioner is
found by the investigating authorities. Huge amount of transactions have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 11/22/2022
11:49:47 AM
reflected and the amount has been deposited in the account of the petitioner. At
this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner's involvement is on the basis of
the fraud which has been committed by the Branch Manager as he has opened a
forged account in the name of the petitioner. Whether the account which has
been opened by the Branch Manager is forged or not, has to be established in
the trial. For every defalcation or misappropriation of funds, a separate FIR
could have been registered against the petitioner. Several transactions have been
reflected from the documents collected by the Investigating Officer during the
investigation. It is a recurring offence which has been committed by the
petitioner. The inquiries which have been conducted are of different periods.
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the inquiry pertaining to defalcation
is for a single incident and, therefore, registration of a subsequent FIR against
the petitioner is just and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the case.
He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the matter relates to
defalcation of the huge amount by the bank authorities in connivance with the
petitioner. The transactions clearly demonstrate that the amount has been
transferred to the account of the petitioner on several occasions. Several
transactions have been reflected from the documents collected by the
investigating agency. It is not a case where only a single incident or transaction
has taken place for which amount has been transferred in his account but the
records show that the amounts have been transferred in the account of the
petitioner on several occasions. The details at page no.55-56 of the petition
which is part of the inquiry clearly show that from 02.07.2013 till 2015 several
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 11/22/2022
11:49:47 AM
amounts have been transferred in the petitioner's account. The aforesaid aspect
is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. Another document which has
been placed on record in the form of seizure memo also shows that the
transactions have taken place between 2013 to 2015 and, therefore, it cannot be
said that there was only a solitary transfer and one incident. On the basis of
which FIR was registered in the year 2015. Every transaction amounts to
separate offence for which the action can be taken against the petitioner. The
judgment in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra) which has been relied
upon is virtually on a different aspect as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the aspect that for a single incident, multiple FIR at different
districts have not been registered against him, therefore, the analogy will not be
applicable in the present case.
7. In such circumstances, the registration of a subsequent FIR against the
petitioner is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present
petition.
8. Petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 11/22/2022
11:49:47 AM
