A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) A significant question arising for consideration in this petition is whether reference to the Arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, bars the alternate remedy of criminal proceedings under Section 408, Indian Penal Code, where the facts alleged constitute an offence under the said Code.
(2.) VIJAY Kumar petitioner was Secretary of Ramgarh Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited at the material time. He is alleged to have committed embezzlement of Rs. 80,000/- and odd. A reference was made to the Arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and 30 different awards of varying amounts were given by the Arbitrator against the petitioner on January 23, 1988. These have not been executed so far. On March 15, 1988, an FIR under Section 408, Indian Penal Code, was lodged against the petitioner. He seeks quashing of the first information report on the ground that in view of the awards obtained against him the dispute had assumed the form of a civil dispute and resort to criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a long line of decisions of this Court holding that in similar circumstances continuance of criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of Court. He placed his reliance on Janak Rai v. The State of Punjab, 1979 CLR (Pb. and Har.) 236, Harbhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1983(2) RCR 156, Bant Singh v. The Dulley Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., 1987(2) RCR 435, Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. 429-M of 1987 decided on February 20, 1987 (unreported) and Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 175.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, is that where the facts disclose the commission of an offence and the criminal proceedings have not been either expressly or by necessary implication barred, the alternate remedy cannot be held to be excluded merely by obtaining an award against the delinquent.;