AP MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPEME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3869 OF 2021 A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE  ASSOCIATION                                                      … PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS.                    …RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE (CRIMINAL) NO. 3875 OF 2021 J U D G M E N T V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. Challenging an order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana   in   two   interlocutory   applications   granting   stay   of   all Signature Not Verified further proceedings including the arrest of the Respondents 1 to 3 Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR Date: 2021.07.20 13:39:46 IST Reason: herein   (petitioners   before   the   High   Court),   pending   two   main 2 petitions for quashing the criminal complaints in Crime Nos. 218 and 222 of 2021 of Banajara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, the  de facto  complainant, has come up with these Special Leave Petitions. 2. We have heard Shri Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for   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 III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the Respondents 1 to 3 herein on 19.02.2021. The learned Magistrate passed   an   order   under   Section   156(3)   of   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure,   directing   the   police   to   register   cases   and   take   up investigation,   pursuant  to  which,   the   Police   registered   two  First Information Reports (FIR for short) in Crime Nos. 218 and 222 of 2021 respectively on 12.03.2021 and 13.03.2021. 4. The Respondents 1 to 3 herein who were the accused in those two complaints were described in those two complaints respectively as  (i) Presently   Chairman   and   erstwhile   Senior   Vice   Chairman;  Managing Director and CEO; and   Presently Vice Chairman (ii) (iii) 3 and erstwhile Chairman of A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank. The   offences   complained   of   by   the   petitioner   against   the Respondents 1 to 3 herein were under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B IPC. It is necessary to take note at this stage that the Cooperative Bank involved is actually a multi­ state cooperative society governed by the Multi­State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. 5. Immediately   after   the   registration   of   the   complaints,   the Respondent   Nos.   1   to   3   herein   filed   two   petitions   in   Criminal Petition Nos. 2370 and 2371 of 2021 under Section 482 of the Code seeking to quash the criminal complaints. Pending disposal of the criminal complaints, the Respondents 1 to 3 herein sought interim stay of all further proceedings 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 were hotly   contested   by   the   petitioner   herein,   as   the   petitioner   was arrayed as the 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 4 passed a reasoned order on 27.04.2021 granting stay of all further proceedings in both the complaints. It is against the said order that the petitioner has come up with the above SLPs. 8. Briefly and broadly, the reasons provided by the learned Judge of the High Court for granting stay of further proceedings in the complaints are 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 the Cooperative Bank expired in April, 2020 and the election process that was set in motion in March, 2020   culminated   in   the   holding   of   elections   on 20.12.2020; (iii) That there was a huge acrimony surrounding the elections,   leading   to   the   filing   of   a   batch   of   writ petitions   both   before   and   after   the   conduct   of elections; (iv) That there was an over­lapping of the allegations relating to ‘loan fraud’ and ‘voter fraud’ in the writ petitions also, challenging or supporting the election process; 5 (v) That   in   the   said   batch   of   writ   petitions,   another learned Judge of the same High Court had passed a common order on 08.01.2021, directing the results of the election to be declared and the newly elected Board to take charge but directing the newly elected Directors not to take policy decisions until further orders; (vi) That   even   before   the   registration   of   the   FIRs   in March,   2021   the   police   issued   a   notice   under Section 91 Cr.PC to the Manager of the Bank asking him to preserve the CCTV footage of a particular period,   which   was   clearly   in   violation   of   the mandate of law; and (vii) That the allegations of ‘voter fraud’ and ‘loan fraud’ are   inter­related   to   the   issues   raised   in   the   writ petitions and that therefore further proceedings in the criminal complaints are liable to be stayed. 9. Assailing the said order of the learned Judge, it was contended by Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for petitioner:­ (i) That the High Court should not have stayed further proceedings,   when   on   a   plain   reading   of   the complaints,   cognizable   offences   are   prima   facie made  out,  especially  in the  teeth of   the  law laid down by this Court in   Neeharika Infrastructure 6 1 Pvt. Ltd . vs.  State of Maharashtra & Others  and Skoda   Auto   Volkswagon   India   Pvt.   Ltd .   vs. 2 State of U.P . ;   (ii) That the impugned order is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court in   Mohd. Allauddin Khan 3 vs.    .   and      vs. State of Bihar & Ors K. Jagdish 4 in   as   much   as   it   holds   the Udaya   Kumar   GS   pendency   of   civil   writ   petitions   relating   to   voter fraud,   as   having   any   bearing   upon   the   criminal complaints; and (iii) That the High Court was in error in thinking that some   of   the   allegations   pertained   to   disputes arbitrable   under   Section   84   of   Multi­State Cooperative   Societies   Act,   2002   and   that   such   a view is in the teeth of the decision of this Court in . vs.  N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd Indo Unique 5 . Flame Ltd 10. Mr.   Ahluwalia,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   took   us through   all   the   documents   including   the   pleadings   in   the   writ petitions, the interim order passed in the writ petitions, the various complaints made to the police as well as the Reserve Bank of India 1  (2021) SCC Online SC 315 2  (2020) SCC Online SC 988 3  (2019) 6 SCC 107 4  (2020) 14 SCC 552 5  (2021) SCC Online SC 13 7 and the way the State treated those complaints. He also drew our attention   to   various   passages   in   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in  (supra) and made a passionate appeal that heavens will Neeharika certainly fall if the stay granted by the High Court 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 interim order passed by the High Court when the main matter is pending adjudication before the High Court; (ii) That   what   is   taken   exception   to   in   Neeharika (supra) is the tendency of courts to pass innocuous orders,   not   to   take   coercive   steps   and   that   too without assigning any reasons; and (iii) That in the case on hand the High Court had more justifiable   reasons   than   one   to   grant   a   stay   and such   reasons   are   also   recorded   by   the   learned Judge   and   that   the   tendency   to   foist   criminal complaints  at the time of elections  can be taken note of by courts whenever a challenge is made to the initiation of the prosecution. 12. We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   and   also   gone through pleadings and documents. Before we proceed to consider 8 the rival contentions, it is necessary to take note of the sequence of events that preceded the lodging of the FIRs, as they throw some light on the first principle of Criminal Law  that   “witnesses may lie, 9 but circumstances may not”.   The sequence is as follows:­ (i) The term of office of the erstwhile Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank was to expire in April, 2020 and   hence   a   Returning   Officer   was   appointed   in February, 2020. An election notification was issued on 18.03.2020 but it was withdrawn after COVID­ 19 struck; (ii) A final voters list was issued on 17.11.2020 followed by a fresh election notification on 24.11.2020; st   (iii) The   1 respondent   herein   was   the   Senior   Vice rd Chairman and the 3   respondent herein was the Chairman in the erstwhile Board of Directors. The nd 2   respondent   was   the   Managing   Director   and CEO; (iv) Immediately   after   the   election   notification   dated 24.11.2020 was issued, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition on 30.11.2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, praying for a declaration that the proposed conduct of elections based on a bogus voters list dated 17.11.2020 was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Multi­State Cooperative Societies Act,   2002,   as   well   as   certain   provisions   of   the Banking   Regulation   Act,   on   account   of   the illegalities   committed   by   the   then   Board   of Directors. Pending their Writ Petition No. 21795 of 10 2020,   the   petitioner   herein   sought   two   interim reliefs in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020, respectively for (i)  the conduct of a thorough investigation with the help of police/investigation agencies and to bring the culprits before law; and  (ii)  stay of operation of the bogus voters list. (v) Though   the   aforesaid   writ   petition   was   filed   on 30.11.2020, the elections were held as scheduled on 20.12.2020.   The   counting   of   votes   began   on 21.12.2020,   but   half­way   through,   the   Returning Officer decided to stop  the  counting of  votes, for reasons not decipherable now and in any case not necessary for the present dispute; (vi) Therefore, few more writ petitions came to be filed st by certain individuals including the 1  Respondent herein.   The   details   of   those   writ  petitions  are as follows:­

11

(vii) The applications praying for interim relief in all the aforesaid writ petitions were taken up together by another   learned   Judge   of   the   High   Court.   After hearing   elaborate   arguments,   the   learned   Judge passed a common order dated 08.01.2021 in all the Interim   Applications   in   those   writ   petitions.   The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:­ “(i) I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No. 23853, I.A. No. 1 of 2020 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   is   directed   to   announce   the   result   of   the election held on 20.12.2020; ii) in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, issue notice, returnable by 02.02.2020; iii) I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21795 of 2020 is filed praying to stay the operation of bogus voters list dated   17.11.2020.   for   the   reasons   stated   above, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the interlocutory Application I.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 2020 petitioners are praying to suspend the declaration of results of the election. For the reasons stated above, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought in the Interlocutory Application. I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 23976 of 2020 is dismissed; v)   I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 23976 of 2020 is th filed to direct the 4  respondent Bank to conduct re­ election to the posts of Directors. Unless the Court holds   that   the   election   process   undertaken   by   the Returning Officer is vitiated, Court cannot direct re­ election. Therefore, prayer sought in this Interlocutory Application cannot be granted at this stage. I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in W.P. No. 21976 of 2020 is dismissed; 12 vi) Until further orders, the newly elected Directors are directed not to take policy decisions affecting the affairs of the society and the bank, including dealing with the funds of the society except for attending to day to day needs of the Society and the Bank and payment of salaries and allowances of the staff.” (viii) Challenging one portion of the common order dated 08.01.2021  forbidding   the  newly   elected  directors from taking any policy decisions, the Management of the Bank filed two writ appeals in W.A. No. 21 and 22 of 2021. Upon being informed that the writ petitions were listed for hearing on 09.02.2021, the Division bench disposed of the writ appeals by an order dated 21.01.2021, granting opportunity to the Management of the Bank to move an appropriate application   before   the   learned   Judge   seeking necessary clarification; (ix) Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   order   of   the   Division nd Bench, the 2   Respondent moved applications for clarification, but later chose to withdraw the same; (x) On 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021, (a few days before the learned Judge passed the common interim order in   the   writ   petitions),   the   petitioner   Association claims   to   have   sent   by   post,   a   complaint   to   the police; (xi) Thereafter, on 22.01.2021, the petitioner admittedly moved   the   Hon’ble   Minister   for   Agriculture, Marketing   and   Cooperation,   Government   of 13 Telangana, with a petition regarding the inaction on the part of the police on the complaints allegedly sent by post on 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021. On the petition   so   given   by   the   petitioner   herein,   the Hon’ble   Minister   issued   a   direction   to   the Commissioner   of   Police   on   22.01.2021   to   the following effect:­ “Enclosed   are   the   complaints   wherein   serious allegations   are   made   of   commission   of   cognizable offences.   Kindly get both the FIRs registered and investigation be carried out immediately.   Copies of FIRs be forwarded to Government within two days.” (xii) On 03.02.2021, the petitioner herein filed a fresh writ   petition   in   W.P.   No.   2724   of   2021   with   the following main and interim prayers:­ “ MAIN PRAYER: In light of the extraordinary facts and circumstances above, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to   pass   a   writ   of   mandamus   or   an   order(s)/ direction(s) of the nature of mandamus: (i)  Directing   Respondent   No.   2   to   suspend   the Board   of   Directors   of   Respondent   5   Bank   and appoint   an   administrator   (as   has   also   been recommended by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No.   2   vide   letter   No.   6392/Coop­I/A2/2020   dated 23.12.20) in view of the serious allegations of inter alia large­scale money siphoning, fraud, falsification of   documents   and   forging   of   records   done   by Respondent   No.   7   and   Respondent   No.   8,   in conspiracy with Respondent No. 6, which acts are gravely prejudicial to the interest of both the Society as well as its members, contrary to the Multi State Cooperative   Societies   Act,   2002   and   Bye   laws   of Respondent   No.   5,   for   which   cognizable   offences Respondent   No.   4   has   directed   Commissioner   of Police, Hyderabad to register two FIRs and carry out investigation immediately; 14 (ii)  Directing   Respondent   No.   3   to   carry   out   a forensic   audit   of   the   bank   as   recommended   vide letter No. 6392/Coop­I/A2/2020 dated 23.12.20 of Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 2, which has informedly   been   recommended   onward   by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3; (iii) Directing   Respondent   No.   3   for   removal   of Respondent No. 6 as the MD & CEO of Respondent No. 5 Bank in view of the serious allegations against him of inter alia large­scale money siphoning, frauds, falsification   of   documents,   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 and reasonable to protect the interests of thousands of   small   investors   of   the   Bank   in   the   facts   and circumstances of the case.    For   the   reasons   stated INTERIM   PRAYERS: hereinabove, pending disposal of the writ petition, the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court, in light of the extra­ordinary facts and circumstances above, may graciously be pleased to: (i) ad interim suspend the Boards of Directors of Respondent No. 5 bank, appoint a Retired Supreme Court/High   Court   Judge   as   an   administrator   of Respondent No. 5, during the pendency of the writ petition   or   Respondent   No.   2   acting   upon representation   No.   6392/Coop­I/A2/2020   dated 23.12.20   forwarded   by   Respondent   No.   4   to Respondent   No.   2   or   representation   of   Petitioner dated 17.01.21 to Respondent No. 3, whichever is earlier, so as to secure the proper management of the Bank and to prevent causing irreparable harm to the interest   of   the   small   depositors   of   the   Petitioner­ association,   in   view   of   the   serious   allegations   of large­scale   money  siphoning,   fraud,   falsification   of documents, forging of records of Respondent No. 5, by Respondent No. 6 in conspiracy with Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8, which criminal offences of serious fraud are under police investigation; or in the   alternative,   suspend   Respondent   No.   6   and appoint a retired Managing Director of any Public Sector Undertaking Bank as an ad interim MD and CEO   of   the   Respondents   No.   5   bank,   until Respondent No. 2  has acted  upon the Petitioner’s 15 representation   dated   17.01.21   or   during   the pendency of this petition, whichever is earlier; and  (ii) until   further   orders   direct   that   the   newly elected Directors to not to take any policy decisions affecting   the   affairs   of   the   society   and   the   bank, including dealing with the funds of the society except for attending to the day to day needs of the Society and   the   Bank   and   payment   of   salaries   and allowances to the staff, as already directed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.01.21 in CWP No. 21795/2020   filed   by   the   Petitioner,   which   is   sub judice; and pass any other orders/directions deemed just   and   reasonable   to   protect   the   interests   of thousands of small investors of the Bank in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (xiii) On 05.02.2021 the High Court ordered notice before admission in W.P. No. 2724 of 2021 but did not grant any interim order; (xiv) By coincidence or otherwise, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who was nominated to be the Returning Officer for the conduct of the elections, was also issued with a charge memo on the very same day namely 03.02.2021, the date on which the petitioner filed their second writ petition in W.P. No. 2725 of 2021. Contending that the charge memo was   the   product   of   the   handiwork   of   certain disgruntled elements, the Returning Officer filed a writ   petition   in   W.P.   No.   3679   of   2021.   On 22.02.2021, the High Court granted interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the charge memo; (xv) In   the   meantime,   the   petitioner   lodged   two complaints   on   the   file   of   the   III   Additional   Chief 16 Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.02.2021, one of them revolving   around   allegations   about   the   grant   of loans   and   the   other   revolving   around   allegations relating to voter fraud. (xvi) The   learned   Magistrate   passed   an   order   under Section 156(3) of the Code, pursuant to which, the police registered an FIR bearing No.218 of 2021 on 12.03.2021 and an FIR bearing No.222 of 2021 on 13.03.2021; (xvii) Praying for quashing of these two complaints, the Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Criminal Petition Nos. 2370 and 2371 of 2021. The Respondents 1 to nd 3 impleaded the petitioner herein as 2  Respondent in   those   quash   petitions.   According   to   the petitioner, the learned Judge heard arguments in the   petitions   for   interim   stay   pending   the   quash petitions and reserved orders on 23.03.2021. It is claimed by the petitioner that thereafter they filed counter   affidavits   to   the   criminal   petitions   on 01.04.2021. It is further claimed by the petitioner that   thereafter   they   also   filed   a   memo   on 15.04.2021 enclosing a copy of the judgment of this Court   in   Neeharika   (supra)   dated   13.04.2021. However, the learned Judge passed a common order granting   stay   of   further   proceedings   in   both   the 17 quash   petitions,   on   27.04.2021.   Therefore,   the petitioner has come up with the above SLPs. 13. The above sequence of events would show that the petitioner herein who was admittedly registered as an Association only in the year  2019 (as  per the   averments  in Para  2 of  W.P.No.21795 of 2020), fired their first salvo, only against the proposed elections, by filing a writ petition on 30.11.2020. After failing to get any interim order preventing the Returning Officer from proceeding with the election,   the   petitioner   indulged   in   a   multipronged   attack,   by sending police complaints by post on 02.01.2021 and 03.01.2021, then moving the Hon’ble Minister and getting a direction from him to the Commissioner of Police on 22.01.2021, thereafter moving a post­election   writ   petition   in   Writ   petition   No.2724   of   2021   to prevent the newly elected Board from taking charge and then filing private complaints before the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.02.2021 and getting an order under Section 156(3) of the Code leading to the registration of the FIRs. The complaints lodged by the petitioner Association, contained allegations relating to the period   2016­2019   and   2020,   though   the   association   itself   was registered only in 2019. 18 14. It is of interest to note that the petitioner Association which lawfully came into existence by registering itself as an Association under   the   relevant   law   only   in   2019,   started   off   only   with   a grievance relating to the elections and the creation of the post of Chairman Emeritus, at the beginning. It appears that the petitioner Association moved a writ petition way back in February, 2020 in W.P. No. 3687 of 2020 expressing an apprehension that elections will not be conducted fairly. But a learned Judge of the High Court dismissed   the   writ   petition   by   an   order   dated   20.02.2020.   As against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A. No. 154 of 2020 which is stated to be pending. 15. The petitioner has made a passing reference in Paragraph 3 of their writ petition W.P. No. 21795 of 2020, to the above writ appeal W.A. No.153 of 2020, which even according to them, related only to an election dispute. 16. Similarly,   the   petitioner   has   made   a   passing   reference   to another writ appeal in W.A.No.141 of 2020 in Para 3 of their writ petition in W.P.No.21795 of 2020. This, according to the petitioner Association   related   to   the   conferment   of   the   title   of   Chairman 19 st Emeritus   on   the   1   Respondent   herein.   The   background   facts relating to this writ appeal, are not disclosed by the petitioner fully in their writ petition. 17. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner started a dispute first against the conferment of the title of Chairman Emeritus on st the 1  Respondent and then they raised issues with regard to the proposed elections, first in a writ petition filed in February, 2020 and   then   in   a   writ   petition   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, which is why a direction was issued on 22.01.2021 by the  Hon’ble Minister, to the Commissioner of Police to register the complaints and report to the Government. 18. What is important to note, is the fact that in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.21975 of 2020 the petitioner had prayed for a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 therein (namely the State of Telangana, Central Registrar, the Returning Officer and the Management of the Bank) to   conduct   a   thorough   investigation   with   the   help   of   the police/investigation agencies.   The learned Judge who heard this 20 I.A. along with other applications in the connected writ petitions, merely ordered (on 08.01.2021), notice returnable by 02.02.2021 in the said application. 19. In  the next  writ  petition W.P.No.2724 of  2021  filed by the petitioner on 03.02.2021 (after the declaration of results pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 08.01.2021), the petitioner again made a prayer for interim relief to suspend the elected Board on the ground that allegations of large scale money siphoning, fraud and   falsification   and   forging   of   documents   are   under   police investigation. On the date on which W.P.No.2724 of 2021 was filed namely 03.02.2021, no FIR was pending, but the petitioner was emboldened to make such a statement in their writ petition, on account of the endorsement that they were able to secure from the Hon’ble Minister on 22.01.2021. It is only after failing to secure any interim   order   even   in   the   second   writ   petition   that   the   private complaints were filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate on 19.02.2021. 20. Therefore,   it   was   patently   an   election   dispute   which   was sought to be converted to a criminal case. More often than not 21 election   disputes   are   fought   on   different   turfs,   such   as   polling booths, police stations and court rooms. Sometimes, persons who raise these disputes manage to camouflage their  real motive by words clothed in high moral fiber and strong legal content. But unfortunately, the petitioner could not do it successfully in this case, as the election disputes came to the court first before the petitioner   could   fall   back   upon   allegations   of   loan   fraud. Fortunately, the High Court saw through the game. This is why the High Court in its impugned order, granted the extraordinary relief of stay of further proceedings including the arrest of Respondents 1 to 3 herein. The facts are so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that the High Court correctly found it to be a fit and proper case to grant interim reliefs to Respondents 1­3 herein. 21. Having seen the factual aspects, let us now deal with the three questions of law on which the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise a high pitch. 22. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3,   (supra) certainly allowed space Neeharika for the High Court to pass an interim order of the nature impugned 22 herein,  “ in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, ” . What is frowned upon in   (supra) giving brief reasons Neeharika is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, non­ speaking orders reading   “no coercive steps shall be adopted”.     In Paragraph   60   of   the   Report   in     (supra),   this   Court Neeharika recognized that there may be allegations of abuse of process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. In the order impugned in these petitions, the   High   Court   has   given   elaborate   reasons   as   to   how   the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in the light of  Neeharika   principles. 23. In fact,  reiterates the parameters laid down in the Neeharika  6 celebrated decision in  State of Haryana   vs.  Bhajan Lal .   One of the   cardinal   principles   evolved   in   (supra)   found   in Bhajan   Lal   paragraph 102 (7) reads as follows:

6    1992 Supp (1) SCC 335  23 In   paragraph   37   of   the   decision   in   Neeharika ,   the   above passage from   is extracted.  In fact   (supra) Bhajan Lal Bhajan Lal took note of the view expressed by Bhagwati, C.J. in  Sheonandan 7   to   the   effect   Paswan   vs.   State   of   Bihar “that   a   criminal prosecution,   if   otherwise   justifiable   and   based   upon   adequate evidence,   does   not   become   vitiated   on   account   of   malafides   or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.”  Yet  Bhajan (supra) laid down seven principles in paragraph 102, the last Lal   which   we   extracted   above.     The   seven   principles   enunciated   in paragraph 102 of   Bhajan Lal   (a two­member Bench) are actually quoted with approval in   (a three­member Bench). Neeharika 24. In fact, one of the interim prayers sought by the petitioner in the civil writ proceedings is for the conduct of a forensic audit. The said   prayer   is   pending   consideration.   Allegations   of   the   nature projected by  the petitioner cannot  be  taken  for  their face value without a forensic audit and the court cannot go by the  ipse dixit  of the petitioner.  7   (1987) 1 SCC 288 24 25. It is completely wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that   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 of the entire proceedings changed from February 2020   to   February   2021   and   it   is   in   that   background   that   the learned Judge took note of the pendency of civil proceedings and the overlapping of allegations. Therefore, the petitioner cannot press into service the ratio in   Mohd. Allauddin Khan   (supra) and   K.  (supra). Jagdish 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 impugned   order   to   Section   84   of   the   Multi­state   cooperative Societies Act, 2002 is only for the limited purpose of dealing with the allegations relating to admission of members. 27. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the High Court was   perfectly   justified   in   granting   interim   protection   to   the Respondents 1 to 3 herein and in ensuring that the supremacy of the ballot is not sabotaged by the authority of the police. Hence the SLPs   are   dismissed.   Consequently   the   applications   for   stay   are 25 dismissed and the stay earlier granted is vacated. The vacate stay petitions are closed in view of the dismissal of the stay applications. ………………………………..J.  (INDIRA BANERJEE) ………………………………..J. (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN) New Delhi July 20, 2021