A P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) AMRIK Singh, petitioner, was appointed Incharge of the Sale Centre of PUNSUP, i.e. the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. It seems that during his tenure, certain shortages came to light which were gone into by a Committee appointed by the Management. The Committee included two representatives nominated by the petitioner. Ultimately, a shortage of Rs. 1,79,208.85 was found. The Corporation instituted a civil suit against the petitioner on 21-1-1986 which is Annexure P-2. The Corporation, also lodged an FIR No. 65 dated 13-8-1987 at Police Station, Bareta, District Bhatinda, under section 408, IPC. Through this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and proceedings taken thereon.
(2.) THE main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made against the petitioner are of a civil nature and in fact the Corporation chose to have the civil remedy by filing a suit much prior to the lodging of the criminal report. He placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court, which are - 1) Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 175; 2) Bant Singh v. The Dulley Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 435 (P&H) : 1988(1) CLR 135; 3) Harbhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156 ; 4) Amar Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1982(2) CLR 125. In these authorities, the complainant Society had referred the matter to arbitration under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and an award had been given by the Arbitrator for or against the accused, who was the delinquent. It was held in the facts of these cases that the dispute was of a civil nature; that the Society had already obtained the award and on the same facts a criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court. The criminal proceedings were thus quashed. Apart from the fact that these authorities are clearly distinguishable on the facts in as much as the dispute has not been referred to the Arbitrator nor is there any award of the Arbitrator; the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and anr., 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 539 ; 1985(1) CLR 666 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided the aforesaid cases. It has been clearly laid down that civil and criminal remedies are co-extensive and not mutually exclusive. They can run side by side as their purpose and effect is altogether different: The Corporation may not be satisfied by having the offender punished. It also wants to secure its financial interest by lodging a civil suit for the recovery of the amount within the period of limitation. No fault can be found with it. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1987, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 3062 of 1987, decided by a Division Bench on February 10, 1987. It is a short order and there is no doubt that the case related to validity of a Will which was in dispute in those proceedings. It was in this context observed that it would, not be proper to permit the respondents to prosecute the appellants on the allegations made therein when the validity of the Will was being decided before a civil court. There is no such dispute regarding the validity of any particular document which is in question before the Civil Court in the facts of the case in hand. The authority is thus of no assistance.
(3.) IT is settled law that jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code is used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of the Court. No case having been made out, the petition is dismissed.;