TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted president of one society named as Ramchandra Yadu Higher Secondary Shiksha Prasar Samiti Chhera, District-Morena (hereinafter referred as the "Society"). List of members/ office bearers of the society are placed as annexure A-3. A dispute in respect of membership has been raised by the complainant/ respondent No.2 in which Deputy Registrar, Firms and Society passed an order in favour of the office bearers of the society vide order dated 05/05/2010. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before Registrar Firms and Society, but the same got dismissed vide order dated 24/12/2010 (Annexure A-4) and respondent No.2 was not found the valid member of the society. Challenging the said order dated 24/12/2010, petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government in which the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication on merits vide order dated 05/11/2011 (Annexure A-5). After getting remand order from the State Government, the matter was heard before the Registrar Firms and Society who vide order dated 23/06/2012 (Annexure A-6) directed for enquiry under Section 32 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "Adhiniyam"). There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to counsel for the petitioner, the case does not involve any ingredients of cheating, fraud and forgery because this is the dispute in respect of membership and the petitioner was the elected Secretary of the Samiti and since respondent No.2 has alleged in the FIR about the election of the petitioner therefore, this cannot be a ground for registration of the FIR because petitioner has the alternative remedy of filing civil dispute under the Adhiniyam or by way of civil suit but certainly not the criminal case. While referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736, he submits that civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal case. 8. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that because of directions given by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.4215/2016, the police has registered the FIR against the petitioner. The said petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred on misrepresentation of facts. In the said petition, then petitioner did not disclose the fact that earlier an enquiry was conducted by the SDOP, Joura and he declined to interfere because of pendency of the writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for respondent/ State also opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that enquiry is going and police authority has sought documents from petitioner's side but petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and has not submitted the documents so far. Therefore, on the basis of case diary, counsel for the respondent/ State also prayed for dismissal of the petition. 11. Heard the counsel for the parties at length in respect of M.Cr.C. No.1532/2017. 12. In the case in hand, petitioner has sought quashment of FIR registered against him for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 13. From perusal of the complaint, documents and submissions of the parties, it appears that matter pertains to interpolation of some documents/ record of the society in which according to respondent No.2, petitioner has interpolated the record and new members have been incorporated in the list. Two lists of membership dated 14/07/2009 has been referred in which both the list contained different members in a way that one list contained 38 members whereas another list contained 43 members. 14. Similarly, from perusal of the document placed by respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the other and not that the facts relied on by the prosecution are the same in the two trials. A plea of autrefois acquit is not proved unless it is shown that the verdict of acquittal of the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter. " 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) has further dealt this dictum and expression is as under:- "35. The learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. Wherein during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been launched. This Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing that it would amount to the abuse of process of law. In fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both the offences were same, had neither been raied nor decided. Therefore, the ratio of that judgment does not have application on the facts of this case. 36. Same remained the position s o far as the judgment in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao is conerned. It has been held therein that once the conviction under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be quashed. Parties are directed to cooperate in the investigation. 21. In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference is made out for quashment of FIR therefore, M.Cr.C. No.1532/2017 is hereby dismissed. 22. Through this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought recalling of the order dated 31/08/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4215/2016 wherein as per the submissions of the petitioner, direction has been given by this Court to the police authority to register the FIR in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and therefore the FIR was registered. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition has raised the ground that order in M.Cr.C. No.4215/2016 has been obtained through misrepresentation of facts and fraud and proper facts were not brought on record before the Court. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that here the criminality of action of petitioner was under consideration and since the elements of mens rea was involved therefore, the criminal case was on different factual grounds. Respondent No.2 did not file the petit....