Dhiren Rawani Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 1456 of 2016 Dhiren Rawani …... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Joint Secretary to Govt. of India 3. Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. …… Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. R.S.Mazumdar For the Union of India : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ---- C.A.V. on:

28. 06.2017 Delivered on 05/07/2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Panki P.S. case no. 01 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.01/2014, registered under sections 415, 420 & 120B of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Mohan Lal Marandi, Circle Officer, Panki Circle, Palamau, has given a written report dated 31.12.2013 to the Officer-in-Charge, Panki Police Station alleging therein that by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau dated 21.12.2013 and the orders of S.D.O., Palamau dated 28.12.2013 and 29.12.2013 he had been ordered to file F.I.R. against the Non-Banking Financial Institutions/Company/Co- operative Society-1 Welfare Building & Estates Private Limited Panki, 2. Rainbow Multi Credit Co-operative Society Ltd and 3. Panki Saving & Credit Co-operative Society Panki were sealed.

4. It is further alleged that the aforesaid companies are not registered as non-banking institution with any government or with any Co-operative Society Act nor they have taken any permission from the Reserve Bank of India. It is further alleged that they are working outside their jurisdictional area by collecting money from the general public and for this purpose they were engaged agents on the basis of heavy commission and general public were depositing the money in the aforesaid companies.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is proprietor of Rainbow Multi State Co-operative Society Limited and prior to lodging of this case, petitioner has been implicated in Dhanbad P.S. Case no. 850/2014 and Palamau P.S. case no. 584/2013 and in those cases the co- accused persons namely, Satya Brat Prasad, Anand Brat Prasad and Deepak Prasad have been granted anticipatory bail on 11.02.2015 in ABA No. 2363 of 2014 and other co-accused persons namely, Subhash Chandra Dey and 2 Omshankar Thakur have been granted anticipatory bail on 11.12.2015 in ABA No. 2969 of 2015. However, this petitioner was granted regular bail on 26.06.2015 in B.A.No.4746 of 2015 in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S.case no. 850/2014, copy of the order is annexed with the anticipatory bail application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of oral submission and also the written argument has submitted that the petitioner is a company,namely, Rainbow Multi State Co-operative Society Ltd and its staff have been implicated in series of cases with similar allegations such as Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 850/2014 and Palamau P.S. Case No. 584/2013. It is further submitted that other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court in Annexure-2 series, hence the company does not require any registration.

7. It was further submitted that the I.O of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 850/2014 had inquired about whether said company requires any COR or not. The Reserve Bank of India in its reply dated 11.05.2015 has clearly stated that Rainbow Multi State Co-operative Society Ltd does not fall under the jurisdiction and no COR was required. It was further submitted that the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation and Ministry of Agriculture has categorically stated that no COR is required for the co-operation of business of Rainbow Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd vide Annexure-4. It was further submitted that the petitioner's company Rainbow Multi State Credit Co-operative Society operates under Multistate Credit Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and Multi State Cooperative Societies, Rules 2002 for which certificate of registration has been duly obtained by the said society and accordingly bye-laws have been framed. On that basis of the aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner deserves anticipatory bail.

8. In this case under order dated 19.09.2016 the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to add Joint Secretary to the Government of India as O.P. No.2 and Central Registrar of Co-operative Society, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation as O.P. No.3. It was further directed to serve two sets of copies of the anticipatory bail application to the learned A.S.G.I., Sri Rajiv Sinha.

9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 and 3 by one Deputy Director (Co-operation) Department of Agriculture, Co-operation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi on 28.04.2017 in which at para-8 it has been categorically stated that complaints have been received in the Ministry against the society directly as well as through RBI, Mumbai, RBI, Kolkata and RBI, 3 Bihar etc. on 12.02.2016, the RCS Jharkhand was requested to conduct inspection of the society under Section 108 of M.S.C.S. Act, 2002 and the inspection report in the matter was received vide letter dated 08.09.2016. The report reveals that the petitioner, namely, Dhiren Rawani, President, Sri Varun Kumar Rawani and Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Chief Executive Officer have diverted huge amounts collected from the customers and invested the amount for purchase of the land, which is contrary to the bye-laws and detailed description of the land has also been given and further recommendation was made under Section 108 of M.S.C.S. Act, 2002 for taking action against the petitioner.

10. It was submitted by learned A.S.G.I., Sri Rajiv Sinha that the diversion of fund for purchase of land is a criminal offence. This fact was not brought before the Hon'ble Court in the earlier bail application as O.P. No.2 and 3 were never added as party. Hence petitioner does not deserves anticipatory bail.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner by filing rejoinder to the counter- affidavit has submitted that the complaint is against Kunal Rawani and his father Shankar Rawani and not against this petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in DALIP KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. JAGNAR SINGH AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2009) 14 SCC696and submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner.

12. After hearing both the parties and going through the allegations and also from perusal of case diary and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties, it appears that the petitioner is a Multi State Credit Co- operative Society Ltd and registered under Multistate Credit Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and Multi State Cooperative Societies, Rules 2002 and he has collected huge amount of money from the customers and diverted the same for purchase of land which is not permissible under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. We found force in the submission of learned A.S.G.I., Sri Rajiv Sinha that the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

13. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Sd/- ( Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Raman/