- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Mawana Sugar Works, Mawana, district Meerut is a sugar factory (hereinafter referred to as the Factory) set up by M/s. Sriram Industrial Enterprises Limited, is a company registered as such under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Kunchan-Junga Buildining, 18 Barah Khambha Road, New Delhi. Sidharth C. Shriram (peti tioner No. 3) is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and petitioner Nos. 1and2 are respectively the Manager (Cane) and the Occupier-cum-General Manager of the factory. They have filed the instant writ petition with prayers, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 30-12-1991 under Section 406, 468 and 471, I. P. C. Police Station Mawana, district Meerut and all proceedings in case crime No. 443 of 1991 and a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid Case Crime No. 443 of 1991.
(2.) THE impugned First Information Report giving rise to case Crime No. 443 of 1991 was lodged by Bhupendra Singh, the incharge Secretary, Sabkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Mawana, district Meerut-a co- operative Cane Development Society of Canegrowers registered/deemed to be registered as such under the provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Sociaties Act, 1965. THE area of operation of the said society falls within the area reserved for the Factory under Section 15 of the U. P Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 ('the Act' ). THE material allegations and the gravamen of accusation against the petitioners as contained in the F. I. R. , are that the petitioners through their employees purchased sugarcane, between 23-12-1991 and 28-12-1991, directly from the canegrowers without any 'requisition slips' having been issued for that purpose by the society as per a statutory require ment and further that they conspired and dishonestly forged 'parchies' (requisi tion slips) and purchased sugarcane from the cane-growers on the basis of such Parchies and thereby miss appropriated money belonging to the society. Petitioners' case as stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, is that the employees of the society locked its office and went on strike on 21-12-1991 with the result that no requisition slips were issued by the society to the cane growers who had brought their sugarcane to the Factory on carts and tractor trolies; that the strike continued and in the afternoon of 24-12-1991 a violent mob of people came and resorted to acts of violence in the factory premises and that the employees of the factory, with a view to controlling the law and order situation and liquidating the rush at the gate, had to weigh, "completely under pressure and duress" the sugarcane brought without requisition slips having been issued by the society. Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners raised three fold submissions in support of the relief claimed in the writ petition; firstly that the dispute is basically of civil nature which can be effectively resolved by means of arbitration or otherwise as provided in Rule 108 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1975 (in short the rules); secondly, there are specific provisions in the Act, viz. Sections 22 to 24 providing for punishment in case of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Order i. e. U. P. Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954 (in short the Order) and since, proceeds the submission, the Act provides "efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party", the investigation based on the impugned First Information Report should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution; and thirdly, that the F. I. R. does not disclose commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 468 and 471,i. P. C. in that, proceeds the submission, the averments made therein do not contain ingredients 'forgery' as denned in Section 463,i. P. C. and those of 'criminal breach of trust' as defined in Sec. 406,i. P. C. so as to attract the penal Sections 406, 468 and 471, I. P. C. justifying police investigation under Section 157 (1), Cr PC Sri Sudhir Chandra, vehemently and dexterously urged, relying on the decision of the S. C. in State of Haryana v, Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 616:1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC), that 'specific articulate facts' on the basis of which 'reason to suspect the commission of cognizable offence' apart from the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act could rationally' be interred for the purposes of investigation under Section 157 (1), Crpc, have not been mentioned in the F. I. R. and hence, proceeds the submission, the very condi tion precedent for investigation as comprehended by Section 157, (1) of the Code being lacking in its fulfilment i. e. being satisfied in its non-fulfilment, the investigation undertaken and conducted by the police has to be treated as without jurisdiction and non est.
(3.) SRI R. S. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respon dent's refuted the submissions made by SRI Sudhir Chandra and urged that the F. I. R. is perspicuous in its disclosure of commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sees 406,468 and 471, IPC apart from the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act and that the police having already submitted charge-sheet dated 18-9-1992, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, AIR 1991 (SC) 1260: 1991 JIC 582 (SC), it is non for the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence to see whether an offence is prima facie made out and there is sufficient ground to proceed with the matter and it would not be a proper exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the constitution to inter fere at this stage. So far as the first and second submissions of Sri Sudhir Chandra are concerned, it may be observed that Chapter XXIX of the rules no doubt provides a complete forum for resolution of disputes touching the business of a cane growers co-operative society, inter alia, between the society and a factory or between a cane grower and a factory and similarly Sections 22 to 24 of the Act provide for punishment of any person guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Order and it is true that one of the petitioners, viz. petitioner No. 3 has already been punished and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut vide order dated 17-1-1993 for contravention of Rule 95 of the Rules and other related rules read with paragraph 5 of the Order which forbids the factory from purchasing sugarcane directly from the cane growers falling within the area of operation of the society without any requisition slips having been issued by the society, but the matter does not end there. The FIR contains averments, particularly the averments that: @ HINDi which in the opinion of the court are specific and articulate enough to lead to a reasonable suspicion in the mind of the police officer as to the commission of cognizable offence within the meaning of S. 157 (1) of the Code. Thus the con dition precedent to commencement of investigation being fulfilled, the investi gation based on the FIR cannot be quashed merely because part of the accusation made in the FIR give rise to a dispute comprehended by Rule 108 of the Rules and to an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act. The provisions of the Act or the Rules referred to above do not provide for efficacious redress of the grievance of the society as to its accusation regarding forgery of requisition slips and criminal misappropriation. The grievance in this respect can find its redress only in the manner indicated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.;