# Sursari Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 365 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2014-01-29 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5919 of 2014 - **Bench:** A.P. Sahi, M.C. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sursari-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42826 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of orderrejecting application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.-on objection by prospectiveaccused-held-no locustandi unless process issued on cognizance taken-order impugned quashed-direction for fresh consideration given. Held: Para No. 32& Para 10- In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is abundantly clear that the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case under Section 165(3) Cr.P.C. before cognizance or issuance of process against the accused. The first question is answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons and the settled legal position on the issue, I have no hesitation in holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli clearly exceeded his ## Text 1 All] Sursari Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 365 against him. It is also necessary to deter the persons of shattered mentality, to have some fear for the law that they will have to face the consequences, if they involved in these criminal activities. 11. If the facts of the present case be looked into, it tells that all the applicants mercilessly assaulted Umakant on 9.6.2009 to the extent that he received grievous injuries. However, the injury report has not been filed by the applicants or they were shy of placing it before the court, but the fact remains that apart from the other offences, offence under section 326 IPC was found proved against them, which is a serious offence punishable upto life imprisonment. Thus, the offence in question is definitely a serious nature of offence having its impact over the society. Hence, the same cannot be permitted to be quashed simply because the parties have entered into compromise. 12. Accordingly, the present application with the prayer to quash the proceedings is hereby rejected. 13. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE M.C. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5919 of 2014 Sursari Prasad..... Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.S. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri Abhishek Mishra U.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965Constitution of India Art.-226-Alternative remedy-order passed under section 38 appealable under section 98(i)(d)-writ petition-challenging order passed by Joint Registrar on direction of Court-can not be entertained directly-petition dismissed on ground of alternative remedy. Held: Para-7 The said provision makes it amply clear that an order such as that passed under Section 38 in the present case is appealable and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Sri Mishra is upheld. (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Registrar dated 24.12.2013, Annexure-1 to the writ petition on the ground that the order is erroneous on various grounds and facts as well as in law. 2. Sri K.N. Mishra for the respondent - bank has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order is appealable in terms of Section 98 (1) (d) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, and, therefore, the petition should not be entertained. 3. We have perused the records and we find that the order of the Registrar is an outcome of a Division Bench judgment dated 11.1.2012 between the same parties in Writ Petition No.48177 of 2011, reported in (2012) 1 UPLBEC 798. The authority of the Registrar to hear the matter and dispose of the issue of disqualification was found to be within 366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the jurisdiction of the Registrar in terms of Section 38 of the 1965 Act. 4. In Section 2 (o), an Officer of the Cooperative Society has been defined which also includes a Member of Committee of Management. The provisions are extracted hereunder for ready reference:- "(o) "Officer of a co-operative society" means the president, vice-president, chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, member of committee of management, treasurer, liquidator, administrator or any other persons employed by co-operative society whether with or without remuneration to carry on the business of the society or to supervise its affairs." 5. Consequently, the Division Bench upon an interpretation of Section 38 readwith Section 29 of the Act came to the conclusion that the Registrar has the authority to enter into such a question and accordingly, the Joint Registrar, who had issued the notices, was directed to dispose of the matter finally. 6. As a consequence of the aforesaid direction of the High Court, the impugned order has been passed. The same can be subjected to a challenge through an appeal as urged by Sri Misra. The provisions of Section 98 (1) (d) are extracted hereunder:- "98 (1)(d). an order of the Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 27 expelling or removing a member or under sub-section (2) of Section 38 removing or disqualifying any officer of a co-operative Society." 7. The said provision makes it amply clear that an order such as that passed under Section 38 in the present case is appealable and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Sri Mishra is upheld. 8. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYAN, J. U/s 482/378/407 No. 6319 of 2013 Lakhan Singh..... Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr....... Opp. Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gopesh Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of orderrejecting application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.-on objection by prospectiveaccused-held-no locustandi unless process issued on cognizance taken-order impugned quashed-direction for fresh consideration given. Held: Para No. 32& Para 10- In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is abundantly clear that the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case under Section 165(3) Cr.P.C. before cognizance or issuance of process against the accused. The first question is answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons and the settled legal position on the issue, I have no hesitation in holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli clearly exceeded his