B.S.YADAV,J. - (1.) THE facts leading to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Hukam Chand petition are that he was working as Secretary in the Bondli Cooperative Agricultural Services Society Ltd., Bondli, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. On 6th March, 1977 the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, lodged a First Information Report in the Police Station against the petitioner on the allegation that he had embezzled Rs. 40600.13 belonging to the above-named Society. On 7th March, 1977 i.e. after the registration of the case, the matter was referred to the arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The arbitrator gave his award against the petitioner on 13th September, 1978. The petitioner appealed against that award and the same was dismissed on 7th April, 1980.
(2.) IN the meantime, after investigation of the case under the said that First Information Report, chargesheet was presented against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, on 13th July, 1979. Charges were framed against him on 3rd December, 1979. The petitioner filed an application somewhere in January, 1983 before the trial Court for dropping the criminal proceedings on the ground that in view of the award which was like a decree and was executable, no criminal offence was made out against him. That application as dismissed by the trial Court on 9th May, 1983. The petitioner has now filed this petition in which he prays for quashing the order dated 9th May, 1983 and also for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him. According to him, no criminal or civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute which has been referred to the Registrar or any officer for arbitration as envisaged under Section 55 of the Act and as in the present case the matter has been referred to the arbitrator, the continuation of the proceedings in the criminal court is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, the arbitrator has now proceeded for order of attachment against him (i.e. petitioner) for the recovery of the amount. The main reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was upon Section 55 of the Act which reads as follows :- "Disputes which may be referred to Arbitration : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Cooperative Society, arises :- (d) between the society and any other cooperative society, between a society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of one society and the liquidator of the another society; such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute." He argued that the dispute envisaged by Section 55 of the Act have to be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute and as in the present case the arbitrator has already given his award which has now become final, criminal proceedings in respect of the same dispute cannot be continued. In support of his contention he has cited a decision of this Court in Cr. M. No. 2415-M of 1983. Harbhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab decided on 18th July, 1983 : 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156. The facts of that case are not applicable to the present case. In that case after the award had been given by the arbitrator under the Act, the case was registered against the defaulter. His lordship has remarked that the matter which culminated in the award has assumed the characteristic of civil nature and the taking of criminal proceedings against the defaulter regarding the same matter must be held to be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is to be noted that in that case it was also remarked that the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court during such proceedings could not be disputed. In the present case the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner before the matter was referred to the arbitrator. The charge-sheet had been presented in the Court against the petitioner and the charges were framed against him before the award had become final. Moreover, I am of the view that Section 55 of the Act bars the civil dispute being agitated between the parties concerned in the Court of law. If a person has embezzled the amount, he becomes liable for being prosecuted in a criminal court. It is a separate matter that under the provisions of the Act he also incurs civil liability for the amount alleged to have been embezzled.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited Janak Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1979 C.L.R. (Pb. and Har.) 236. The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case an award had been given against the defaulter about the amount alleged to have been embezzled by him. Thereafter the defaulter filed a criminal complaint against some persons connected with the Cooperative Society concerned alleging that the accused persons conspired and obtained some documents from him after making misrepresentations and practising fraud upon him. One of the accused filed an application in the trial Court for dropping that criminal complaint filed by the defaulter. The trial Court who recommended it for quashing the criminal proceedings. In the reference order it was remarked :- "If the matter had not been referred to the arbitrator for decision, the jurisdiction of the criminal court obviously could not be ousted to try the complaint under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. When the matter had been referred and the decision had been given and that decision had been affirmed by the Assistant Registrar on appeal, the decision is in the nature of a decree, which can be executed in a civil Court. By filing a criminal complaint, that some documents were obtained from the complainant on misrepresentation or fraud, the effect of the awards and the order given by the Assistant Registrar, which has become final under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, cannot be nullified. Moreover, in execution of the said decree, statement of Sohan Singh alias Milkha Singh was given that he should be allowed to pay the amount in instalments. Acting upon the said statement, the instalments were ordered. This would further show that Sohan Singh alias Milkha Singh accepted the awards given by the arbitrator. In such circumstances, the filing of complaint to obtain a contrary decision from the criminal court would amount to abuse of process of the Court and the criminal complaint should not be allowed to proceed. With these observations, the present revision petition is recommended to the High Court for quashing the proceedings initiated on the complaint before the trial Court. That reference was accepted by this Court and the criminal proceedings were quashed. ;