CASE DETAILS v. AMARJEETSINGH MOHINDERSINGH BASI & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed in the above terms
Provisions considered
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 2(n), 4, 154, 156(3), 167(2), 173(2), 452, 482
- Right to Information Act, 2005
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 s. 23(2)
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- Transplantation of the Human Organs Act, 1994
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2023
This judgmentCriminal Appeal No. 1133-1134 of 2009
Built from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.81(5B) – FIR registered by appellant-share holder against respondents for off ences punishable u/ss.420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w. s.34 of IPC – FIR quashed by High Court relying on s.81(5B) of the 1960 Act – Propriety of: Held: The High Court held that s.81(5B) contains special provisions for the submission of a special report and the obtaining of the permission of the Registrar before the lodging of an FIR – It held that these provisions would be rendered otiose if the general provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 were to apply – In the instant circumstances, the High Court has erred in quashing the FIR which was lodged by the appellant – S.81(5B) cannot be interpreted to mean that any other person who comes to know about the fi nancial irregularity on the basis of the audit report is debarred from reporting the irregularity to the police – It is correct that the FIR adverted to the audit which was conducted in respect of the aff airs of the co-operative society – However, once the criminal law is set into motion, it is the duty of the police to investigate into the alleged off ence – This process cannot be interdicted by relying upon the provisions of sub-section (5B) of s. 81 which cast a duty on the Registrar/auditor to lodge a fi rst information report – Impugned Judgment and order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 7, 26 and 29] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 2(n), 4, 154, 156(3), 167(2), 173(2), 452, 482; Right to Information Act, 2005; Constitution of India — art. 226; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.