P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS.

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

AA P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKSHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS.

(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3869 of 2021)

JULY 20, 2021

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Grant of interimprotection, challenged – Petitioner filed pre-election writ petitionCagainst the proposed elections and when failed to get interim order,filed post-election writ petition and also criminal complaints –Respondent no.1 to 3 filed petitions for quashing the criminalcomplaints – Pending disposal of criminal complaints, respondentno.1 to 3 were granted interim stay of all further proceedingsDincluding their arrest before the High Court – On special leavepetition by the complainant, held: It was patently an election disputewhich was sought to be converted to criminal case – The factswere so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that HighCourt correctly found it to be fit and proper case to grant interimreliefs to Respondents 1-3 –It was completely wrong on the part ofEthe petitioner to contend that the High Court was swayed by thependency of civil writ proceedings –High Court was perfectlyjustified in granting interim protection to Respondents 1 to 3 and inensuring that the supremacy of the ballot is not sabotaged by theauthority of the police.FDismissing the SLPs, the Court

HELD: It was patently an election dispute which was soughtto be converted to criminal case. More often than not electiondisputes are fought on different turfs, such as polling booths,police stations and court rooms. Sometimes, persons who raiseGthese disputes manage to camouflage their real motive by wordsclothed in high moral fiber and strong legal content. Butunfortunately, the petitioner could not do it successfully in thiscase, as the election disputes came to the court first before thepetitioner could fall back upon allegations of loan fraud.Fortunately, the High Court saw through the game. The facts areH

P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFAREASSOCIATION v. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG

so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that the HighCourt correctly found it to be fit and proper case to grant interimreliefs to Respondents 1-3. It is completely wrong on the part ofthe petitioner to contend that the High Court was swayed by thependency of civil writ proceedings. The High Court actually tooknote of the manner in which the color of the entire proceedingschanged from February 2020 to February 2021 and it is in thatbackground that the Judge took note of the pendency of civilproceedings and the overlapping of allegations. The High Courtwas perfectly justified in granting interim protection to theRespondents 1 to 3 and in ensuring that the supremacy of theballot is not sabotaged by the authority of the police. [Paras 20,25, 27][863-F-H; 864-A; 865-C-D, F]

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on.

Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors (2019)6 SCC 107 : [2019] 5 SCR 876; K. Jagdish v. UdayaKumar GS (2020) 14 SCC 552; N.N. Global MercantilePvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) SCC OnlineSC 13 – held inapplicable.

Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC288 : [1987] 1 SCR 702 23; Neeharika InfrastructurePvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2021) SCCOnline SC 315; Skoda Auto Volkswagon India Pvt. Ltd.v. State of U.P. (2020) SCC Online SC 988 – referredto.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special LeavePetition (Criminal) No. 3869 of 2021

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2021 of the High Courtof Telangana at Hyderabad in IA Nos. 1 of 2021 in Crl. P No. 2371 of2021.

AWith

Special Leave (Criminal) No. 3875 of 2021.

Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, Malak Manish Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal,H. Rajesh, Angad Ahluwalia, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Sidarth Luthra, S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advs., Raavi VenkataBYogesh, Asif Ahmed, Ms. Snigdha Singh, Vishnu Tellapragada, Advs.for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Challenging an order passed by the High Court for the State ofCTelangana in two interlocutory applications granting stay of all furtherproceedings including the arrest of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein(petitioners before the High Court), pending two main petitions for quashingthe criminal complaints in Crime Nos. 218 and 222 of 2021 of BanajaraHills Police Station, Hyderabad, the de facto complainant, has come upDwith these Special Leave Petitions.

2. We have heard Shri Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counselfor the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Niranjan Reddy,learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein.

3. The petitioner herein filed two complaints on the file of the IIIEAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against theRespondents 1 to 3 herein on 19.02.2021. The learned Magistrate passedan order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,directing the police to register cases and take up investigation, pursuantto which, the Police registered two First Information Reports (FIR forshort) in Crime Nos. 218 and 222 of 2021 respectively on 12.03.2021Fand 13.03.2021.

4. The Respondents 1 to 3 herein who were the accused in thosetwo complaints were described in those two complaints respectively as(i) Presently Chairman and erstwhile Senior Vice Chairman; (ii) ManagingDirector and CEO; and (iii) Presently Vice Chairman and erstwhileGChairman of A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank. The offencescomplained of by the petitioner against the Respondents 1 to 3 hereinwere under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120BIPC. It is necessary to take note at this stage that the Cooperative Bankinvolved is actually multi- state cooperative society governed by theMulti-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.H

5. Immediately after the registration of the complaints, theRespondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed two petitions in Criminal PetitionNos. 2370 and 2371 of 2021 under Section 482 of the Code seeking toquash the criminal complaints. Pending disposal of the criminal complaints,the Respondents 1 to 3 herein sought interim stay of all furtherproceedings including their arrest, in FIR Nos. 218 and 222 of 2021.

6. The applications for stay in I.A. Nos. 1 and 1 of 2021 werehotly contested by the petitioner herein, as the petitioner was arrayed asthe second respondent in the quash petitions.

7. After hearing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein (persons accused)and the petitioner herein (de facto complainant), the High Court passeda reasoned order on 27.04.2021 granting stay of all further proceedingsin both the complaints. It is against the said order that the petitioner hascome up with the above SLPs.

8. Briefly and broadly, the reasons provided by the learned Judgeof the High Court for granting stay of further proceedings in the complaintsare as follows:-

(i)That while one of the two complaints relates to ‘loan fraud’,the other relates to ‘voter fraud’;

(ii)That the term of office of the Board of Directors of theCooperative Bank expired in April, 2020 and the electionEprocess that was set in motion in March, 2020 culminatedin the holding of elections on 20.12.2020;

(iii)That there was huge acrimony surrounding the elections,leading to the filing of batch of writ petitions both beforeand after the conduct of elections;

(iv)That there was an over-lapping of the allegations relatingto ‘loan fraud’ and ‘voter fraud’ in the writ petitions also,challenging or supporting the election process;

(v)That in the said batch of writ petitions, another learned Judgeof the same High Court had passed common order on08.01.2021, directing the results of the election to be declaredand the newly elected Board to take charge but directingthe newly elected Directors not to take policy decisionsuntil further orders;

(vi)That even before the registration of the FIRs in March,2021 the police issued notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to

the Manager of the Bank asking him to preserve the CCTVfootage of particular period, which was clearly in violationof the mandate of law; and

(vii)That the allegations of ‘voter fraud’ and ‘loan fraud’ areinter-related to the issues raised in the writ petitions andBthat therefore further proceedings in the criminal complaintsare liable to be stayed.

9. Assailing the said order of the learned Judge, it was contendedby Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for petitioner:-

(i)That the High Court should not have stayed furtherCproceedings, when on plain reading of the complaints,cognizable offences are prima facie made out, especiallyin the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in NeeharikaInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra &Others[1]and Skoda Auto Volkswagon India Pvt. Ltd. vs.State of U.P.[2];D

(ii)That the impugned order is clearly contrary to the decisionsof this Court in Mohd. Allauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar& Ors.[3] and K. Jagdish vs. Udaya Kumar GS[4]in as muchas it holds the pendency of civil writ petitions relating tovoter fraud, as having any bearing upon the criminalEcomplaints; and

(iii)That the High Court was in error in thinking that some ofthe allegations pertained to disputes arbitrable under Section84 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and thatsuch view is in the teeth of the decision of this Court inFN.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Unique FlameLtd.[5]

10. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner took us throughall the documents including the pleadings in the writ petitions, the interimorder passed in the writ petitions, the various complaints made to theGpolice as well as the Reserve Bank of India and the way the Statetreated those complaints. He also drew our attention to various passages

1 (2021) SCC Online SC 3152 (2020) SCC Online SC 9883 (2019) 6 SCC 1074 (2020) 14 SCC 552H5 (2021) SCC Online SC 13

in the decisions of this Court in Neeharika (supra) and made passionateappeal that heavens will certainly fall if the stay granted by the HighCourt is not vacated.

11. In response, Messrs. Siddharth Luthra and Niranjan Reddy,learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued:-

(i)That normally this Court would not interfere with an interimorder passed by the High Court when the main matter ispending adjudication before the High Court;

(ii)That what is taken exception to in Neeharika (supra) isthe tendency of courts to pass innocuous orders, not to takecoercive steps and that too without assigning any reasons;and

(iii)That in the case on hand the High Court had more justifiablereasons than one to grant stay and such reasons are alsorecorded by the learned Judge and that the tendency tofoist criminal complaints at the time of elections can betaken note of by courts whenever challenge is made tothe initiation of the prosecution.

12. We have considered the rival submissions and also gone throughpleadings and documents. Before we proceed to consider the rivalcontentions, it is necessary to take note of the sequence of events thatpreceded the lodging of the FIRs, as they throw some light on the firstprinciple of Criminal Law that “witnesses may lie, but circumstancesmay not”. The sequence is as follows:-

(i)The term of office of the erstwhile Board of Directors ofthe Cooperative Bank was to expire in April, 2020 and hencea Returning Officer was appointed in February, 2020. Anelection notification was issued on 18.03.2020 but it waswithdrawn after COVID- 19 struck;

(ii)A final voters list was issued on 17.11.2020 followed by afresh election notification on 24.11.2020;

(iii)The 1[st] respondent herein was the Senior Vice Chairmanand the 3[rd] respondent herein was the Chairman in theerstwhile Board of Directors. The 2[nd] respondent was theManaging Director and CEO;

856SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(iv)Immediately after the election notification dated 24.11.2020was issued, the petitioner herein filed writ petition on30.11.2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, praying for adeclaration that the proposed conduct of elections basedon bogus voters list dated 17.11.2020 was illegal andcontrary to the provisions of the Multi-State CooperativeBSocieties Act, 2002, as well as certain provisions of theBanking Regulation Act, on account of the illegalitiescommitted by the then Board of Directors. Pending theirWrit Petition No. 21795 of 2020, the petitioner herein soughttwo interim reliefs in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020, respectivelyCfor

(i)the conduct of thorough investigation with the help ofpolice/investigation agencies and to bring the culprits beforelaw; and (ii) stay of operation of the bogus voters list.

(v)Though the aforesaid writ petition was filed on 30.11.2020,Dthe elections were held as scheduled on 20.12.2020. Thecounting of votes began on 21.12.2020, but half-way through,the Returning Officer decided to stop the counting of votes,for reasons not decipherable now and in any case notnecessary for the present dispute;

E(vi)Therefore, few more writ petitions came to be filed bycertain individuals including the 1[st] Respondent herein. Thedetails of those writ petitions are as follows:-

(vii)The applications praying for interim relief in all the aforesaidwrit petitions were taken up together by another learnedJudge of the High Court. After hearing elaborate arguments,the learned Judge passed common order dated 08.01.2021in all the Interim Applications in those writ petitions. Theoperative portion of the said order reads as follows:-

“(i) I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No. 23853, I.A. No. 1 of2020 in W.P. No. 23869 and I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No.23849 of 2020 are ordered and the Returning Officer isdirected to announce the result of the election held on20.12.2020;

ii) in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, issuenotice, returnable by 02.02.2020;

iii) I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020 is filedpraying to stay the operation of bogus voters list dated17.11.2020. for the reasons stated above, petitioner is notentitled to the relief sought in the interlocutory ApplicationI.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020 is dismissed;

iv) In I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No. 23976 of 2020petitioners are praying to suspend the declaration of resultsof the election. For the reasons stated above, petitionersare not entitled to the relief sought in the InterlocutoryApplication. I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 23976 of 2020 isdismissed;

v) I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 23976 of 2020 is filed todirect the 4[th] respondent Bank to conduct re- election tothe posts of Directors. Unless the Court holds that theelection process undertaken by the Returning Officer isvitiated, Court cannot direct re- election. Therefore, prayersought in this Interlocutory Application cannot be grantedat this stage. I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21976 of 2020is dismissed;

vi) Until further orders, the newly elected Directors aredirected not to take policy decisions affecting the affairs ofthe society and the bank, including dealing with the fundsof the society except for attending to day to day needs ofthe Society and the Bank and payment of salaries andallowances of the staff.”

858SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(viii) Challenging one portion of the common order dated08.01.2021 forbidding the newly elected directors fromtaking any policy decisions, the Management of the Bankfiled two writ appeals in W.A. No. 21 and 22 of 2021. Uponbeing informed that the writ petitions were listed for hearingon 09.02.2021, the Division bench disposed of the writBappeals by an order dated 21.01.2021, granting opportunityto the Management of the Bank to move an appropriateapplication before the learned Judge seeking necessaryclarification;

(ix)Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, theC2[nd] Respondent moved applications for clarification, but laterchose to withdraw the same;

(x)On 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021, (a few days before thelearned Judge passed the common interim order in the writpetitions), the petitioner Association claims to have sent byDpost, complaint to the police;

(xi)Thereafter, on 22.01.2021, the petitioner admittedly movedthe Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture, Marketing andCooperation, Government of Telangana, with petitionregarding the inaction on the part of the police on theEcomplaints allegedly sent by post on 02.01.2021 and03.01.2021. On the petition so given by the petitioner herein,the Hon’ble Minister issued direction to the Commissionerof Police on 22.01.2021 to the following effect:-

“Enclosed are the complaints wherein serious allegationsFare made of commission of cognizable offences. Kindlyget both the FIRs registered and investigation be carriedout immediately. Copies of FIRs be forwarded toGovernment within two days.”

(xii)On 03.02.2021, the petitioner herein filed fresh writ petitionGin W.P. No. 2724 of 2021 with the following main and interimprayers:-

“MAIN PRAYER:

In light of the extraordinary facts and circumstances above,this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass

writ of mandamus or an order(s)/ direction(s) of the natureof mandamus:

(i) Directing Respondent No. 2 to suspend the Board ofDirectors of Respondent 5 Bank and appoint anadministrator (as has also been recommended byRespondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 6392/Coop-I/A2/2020 dated 23.12.20) in view of the seriousallegations of inter alia large-scale money siphoning, fraud,falsification of documents and forging of records done byRespondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8, in conspiracywith Respondent No. 6, which acts are gravely prejudicialto the interest of both the Society as well as its members,contrary to the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002and Bye laws of Respondent No. 5, for which cognizableoffences Respondent No. 4 has directed Commissioner ofPolice, Hyderabad to register two FIRs and carry outinvestigation immediately;

(ii) Directing Respondent No. 3 to carry out forensic auditof the bank as recommended vide letter No. 6392/Coop-I/A2/2020 dated 23.12.20 of Respondent No. 4 to RespondentNo. 2, which has informedly been recommended onwardby Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3;

(iii) Directing Respondent No. 3 for removal of RespondentNo. 6 as the MD & CEO of Respondent No. 5 Bank inview of the serious allegations against him of inter alialarge-scale money siphoning, frauds, falsification ofdocuments, forging of records of Respondent No. 5 Bank,done in conspiracy with Respondent Nos. 7 and 8;

(iv) pass any other orders/directions deemed just andreasonable to protect the interests of thousands of smallinvestors of the Bank in the facts and circumstances of thecase.

INTERIM PRAYERS:For the reasons statedhereinabove, pending disposal of the writ petition, thePetitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court, in light ofthe extra-ordinary facts and circumstances above, maygraciously be pleased to:

A(i) ad interim suspend the Boards of Directors of RespondentNo. 5 bank, appoint Retired Supreme Court/High CourtJudge as an administrator of Respondent No. 5, during thependency of the writ petition or Respondent No. 2 actingupon representation No. 6392/Coop-I/A2/2020 dated23.12.20 forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to RespondentBNo. 2 or representation of Petitioner dated 17.01.21 toRespondent No. 3, whichever is earlier, so as to secure theproper management of the Bank and to prevent causingirreparable harm to the interest of the small depositors ofthe Petitioner- association, in view of the serious allegationsCof large-scale money siphoning, fraud, falsification ofdocuments, forging of records of Respondent No. 5, byRespondent No. 6 in conspiracy with Respondent No. 7and Respondent No. 8, which criminal offences of seriousfraud are under police investigation; or in the alternative,suspend Respondent No. 6 and appoint retired ManagingDDirector of any Public Sector Undertaking Bank as an adinterim MD and CEO of the Respondents No. 5 bank, untilRespondent No. 2 has acted upon the Petitioner’srepresentation dated 17.01.21 or during the pendency ofthis petition, whichever is earlier; and

(ii) until further orders direct that the newly electedDirectors to not to take any policy decisions affecting theaffairs of the society and the bank, including dealing withthe funds of the society except for attending to the day today needs of the Society and the Bank and payment ofFsalaries and allowances to the staff, as already directed bythis Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.01.21 in CWP No.21795/2020 filed by the Petitioner, which is sub judice; andpass any other orders/directions deemed just and reasonableto protect the interests of thousands of small investors ofthe Bank in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

(xiii) On 05.02.2021 the High Court ordered notice beforeadmission in W.P. No. 2724 of 2021 but did not grant anyinterim order;

(xiv) By coincidence or otherwise, the Deputy Registrar ofHCooperative Societies, who was nominated to be the

Returning Officer for the conduct of the elections, was alsoissued with charge memo on the very same day namely03.02.2021, the date on which the petitioner filed their secondwrit petition in W.P. No. 2725 of 2021. Contending that thecharge memo was the product of the handiwork of certaindisgruntled elements, the Returning Officer filed writpetition in W.P. No. 3679 of 2021. On 22.02.2021, the HighCourt granted interim stay of further proceedings pursuantto the charge memo;

(xv)In the meantime, the petitioner lodged two complaints onthe file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrateon 19.02.2021, one of them revolving around allegationsabout the grant of loans and the other revolving aroundallegations relating to voter fraud.

(xvi) The learned Magistrate passed an order under Section156(3) of the Code, pursuant to which, the police registeredDan FIR bearing No.218 of 2021 on 12.03.2021 and an FIRbearing No.222 of 2021 on 13.03.2021;

(xvii) Praying for quashing of these two complaints, theRespondents 1 to 3 herein filed Criminal Petition Nos. 2370and 2371 of 2021. The Respondents 1 to 3 impleaded thepetitioner herein as 2[nd] Respondent in those quash petitions.EAccording to the petitioner, the learned Judge heardarguments in the petitions for interim stay pending the quashpetitions and reserved orders on 23.03.2021. It is claimedby the petitioner that thereafter they filed counter affidavitsto the criminal petitions on 01.04.2021. It is further claimedFby the petitioner that thereafter they also filed memo on15.04.2021 enclosing copy of the judgment of this Courtin Neeharika (supra) dated 13.04.2021. However, thelearned Judge passed common order granting stay offurther proceedings in both the quash petitions, on27.04.2021. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with theGabove SLPs.

13. The above sequence of events would show that the petitionerherein who was admittedly registered as an Association only in the year2019 (as per the averments in Para 2 of W.P.No.21795 of 2020), firedtheir first salvo, only against the proposed elections, by filing writ petition

Aon 30.11.2020. After failing to get any interim order preventing theReturning Officer from proceeding with the election, the petitionerindulged in multipronged attack, by sending police complaints by poston 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021, then moving the Hon’ble Minister andgetting direction from him to the Commissioner of Police on 22.01.2021,thereafter moving post-election writ petition in Writ petition No.2724Bof 2021 to prevent the newly elected Board from taking charge and thenfiling private complaints before the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrateon 19.02.2021 and getting an order under Section 156(3) of the Codeleading to the registration of the FIRs. The complaints lodged by thepetitioner Association, contained allegations relating to the periodC2016-2019 and 2020, though the association itself was registered only in2019.14. It is of interest to note that the petitioner Association whichlawfully came into existence by registering itself as an Association underthe relevant law only in 2019, started off only with grievance relatingDto the elections and the creation of the post of Chairman Emeritus, at thebeginning. It appears that the petitioner Association moved writ petitionway back in February, 2020 in W.P. No. 3687 of 2020 expressing anapprehension that elections will not be conducted fairly. But learnedJudge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated20.02.2020. As against the said order, the petitioner filed writ appeal inEW.A. No. 154 of 2020 which is stated to be pending.

15. The petitioner has made passing reference in Paragraph 3of their writ petition W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, to the above writ appealW.A. No.153 of 2020, which even according to them, related only to anelection dispute.F

16. Similarly, the petitioner has made passing reference to anotherwrit appeal in W.A.No.141 of 2020 in Para 3 of their writ petition inW.P.No.21795 of 2020. This, according to the petitioner Associationrelated to the conferment of the title of Chairman Emeritus on the 1[st]Respondent herein. The background facts relating to this writ appeal,Gare not disclosed by the petitioner fully in their writ petition.

17. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner started disputefirst against the conferment of the title of Chairman Emeritus on the 1[st]Respondent and then they raised issues with regard to the proposedelections, first in writ petition filed in February, 2020 and then in writHpetition filed in November, 2020. It is only thereafter that the allegations

relating to loan fraud were raised by the petitioner Association.Apparently, the petitioner had the blessings of the powers that be, whichis why direction was issued on 22.01.2021 by the Hon’ble Minister, tothe Commissioner of Police to register the complaints and report to theGovernment.

18. What is important to note, is the fact that in I.A.No.1 of 2020in W.P.No.21975 of 2020 the petitioner had prayed for direction toRespondents 1 to 4 therein (namely the State of Telangana, CentralRegistrar, the Returning Officer and the Management of the Bank) toconduct thorough investigation with the help of the police/investigationagencies. The learned Judge who heard this I.A. along with otherapplications in the connected writ petitions, merely ordered (on08.01.2021), notice returnable by 02.02.2021 in the said application.

19. In the next writ petition W.P.No.2724 of 2021 filed by thepetitioner on 03.02.2021 (after the declaration of results pursuant to theorder of the High Court dated 08.01.2021), the petitioner again made aprayer for interim relief to suspend the elected Board on the ground thatallegations of large scale money siphoning, fraud and falsification andforging of documents are under police investigation. On the date onwhich W.P.No.2724 of 2021 was filed namely 03.02.2021, no FIR waspending, but the petitioner was emboldened to make such statement intheir writ petition, on account of the endorsement that they were able tosecure from the Hon’ble Minister on 22.01.2021. It is only after failingto secure any interim order even in the second writ petition that theprivate complaints were filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate on19.02.2021.20. Therefore, it was patently an election dispute which was soughtto be converted to criminal case. More often than not election disputesare fought on different turfs, such as polling booths, police stations andcourt rooms. Sometimes, persons who raise these disputes manage tocamouflage their real motive by words clothed in high moral fiber andstrong legal content. But unfortunately, the petitioner could not do itsuccessfully in this case, as the election disputes came to the court firstbefore the petitioner could fall back upon allegations of loan fraud.Fortunately, the High Court saw through the game. This is why the HighCourt in its impugned order, granted the extraordinary relief of stay offurther proceedings including the arrest of Respondents 1 to 3 herein.The facts are so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that the

AHigh Court correctly found it to be fit and proper case to grant interimreliefs to Respondents 1-3 herein.

21. Having seen the factual aspects, let us now deal with thethree questions of law on which the learned counsel for the petitionersought to raise high pitch.B

22. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearingfor Respondents 1 to 3, Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed space forthe High Court to pass an interim order of the nature impugned herein,“in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, giving briefreasons”. What is frowned upon in Neeharika (supra) is the tendencyCof the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, non- speaking orders reading“no coercive steps shall be adopted”. In Paragraph 60 of the Reportin Neeharika (supra), this Court recognized that there may be allegationsof abuse of process of law, converting civil dispute into criminaldispute, with view to pressurize the accused. In the order impugned inthese petitions, the High Court has given elaborate reasons as to howDthe allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedingsconcerning allegations of election fraud. Therefore, the impugned ordercannot be said to be bad in the light of Neeharika principles.

23.In fact, Neeharika reiterates the parameters laid down inthe celebrated decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal[6]. One ofEthe cardinal principles evolved in Bhajan Lal (supra) found in paragraph102 (7) reads as follows:

“where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted withan ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accusedFand with view to spite him due to private and personalgrudge”

In paragraph 37 of the decision in Neeharika, the above passagefrom Bhajan Lal is extracted. In fact Bhajan Lal (supra) took note ofthe view expressed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan vs. StateGof Bihar[7]to the effect “that criminal prosecution, if otherwisejustifiable and based upon adequate evidence, does not becomevitiated on account of malafides or political vendetta of the firstinformant or complainant.” Yet Bhajan Lal (supra) laid down seven

6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335H7 (1987) 1 SCC 288

principles in paragraph 102, the last which we extracted above. Theseven principles enunciated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (atwo-member Bench) are actually quoted with approval in Neeharika (athree-member Bench).

24. In fact, one of the interim prayers sought by the petitioner inthe civil writ proceedings is for the conduct of forensic audit. The saidprayer is pending consideration. Allegations of the nature projected bythe petitioner cannot be taken for their face value without forensicaudit and the court cannot go by the ipse dixit of the petitioner.

25. It is completely wrong on the part of the petitioner to contendthat the High Court was swayed by the pendency of civil writ proceedings.The High Court actually took note of the manner in which the color ofthe entire proceedings changed from February 2020 to February 2021and it is in that background that the learned Judge took note of thependency of civil proceedings and the overlapping of allegations.Therefore, the petitioner cannot press into service the ratio in Mohd.Allauddin Khan (supra) and K. Jagdish (supra).

26. Even the decision in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (supra)will not go the rescue of the petitioner since the reference in the impugnedorder to Section 84 of the Multi-state cooperative Societies Act, 2002 isonly for the limited purpose of dealing with the allegations relating toadmission of members.

27. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the High Courtwas perfectly justified in granting interim protection to the Respondents1 to 3 herein and in ensuring that the supremacy of the ballot is notsabotaged by the authority of the police. Hence the SLPs are dismissed.Consequently the applications for stay are dismissed and the stay earliergranted is vacated. The vacate stay petitions are closed in view of thedismissal of the stay applications.

Devika Gujral

SLPs dismissed.