1 wp371 & 372.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.371 OF 2026 Ravindra Vitthalrao Gaigole and ors vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO, PS City Kotwali, Amravati and anr WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.372 OF 2026 Yashwant Roopraoji Mangrole and anr vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO, PS City Kotwali, Amravati Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court' s or Judge' s Order Coram, appearances, Court' s Orders or directions and Registrar' s order Shri H.D.Dangre, Counsel & Shri R.S.Dhore, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V.A.Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & RAJ D.WAKODE, JJ. CLOSED ON : 24/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 02/09/2026 1. Heard learned counsel Shri H.D.Dangre for petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A.Thakare for respondents/State. 2026:BHC-NAG:11559-DB 2 wp371 & 372.26.odt 2. Petitioners in these petitions seek directions to respondent No.1 - Police Station Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati and respondent No.2 - The Economic Offence Wing, Amravati City, Amravati to take action in accordance with provisions of the BNSS in the matter of written complaint dated 19.10.2025 and to register FIR against the Directors and the Officers of The Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati. 3. As per contentions of petitioners, they are elected Directors/Members of Managing Committee The Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati for a period of five years i.e. 2021-2026. The Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati is constituted under The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the said Act”) and carried out various Economical and Welfare Schemes for Agriculturists including disbursal of loans. The said banks also elects representatives from various stakeholders in particular district. As per allegations, the Members/Ex-Member of Legislative 3 wp371 & 372.26.odt Assembly, who was also Ex-Minister, and eight Directors, in connivance with the Chief Executive Officer and the Administrative Officer, have indulged in passing false resolutions, interpolation in the record of the bank, illegal distribution of money, tampering of record, distributing various amounts to relatives and thus are acting in common conspiracy and misappropriating public funds thereby cheating investors. Therefore, petitioners have made a complaint to the Police Station Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati alleging misappropriation on the part of some of the Directors who are named in the complaint. It is alleged that petitioners pointed out specific instances of fraud being played by the said Directors at the cost of public funds by way of filing written complaint on 19.10.2025 to respondent No1 - Police Station Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati. However, respondent No.1 failed to act in accordance with the law and, therefore, petitioners have approached this court. 4 wp371 & 372.26.odt 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that at this moment, he is not pressing prayer to the extent of registration of the FIR against the Directors and Officers of The Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati named in the complaint. However, he prayed that direction to respondent No.1 - Police Station Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati and respondent No.2 - The Economic Offence Wing, Amravati City, Amravati to take action in accordance with provisions of the BNSS be granted and they be further directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and complete the same within a stipulated period. He submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors, reported in (2014)2 SCC 1, the enquiry was already commenced, however by misinterpreting the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025, the said enquiry was stopped due to communication by the District Deputy 5 wp371 & 372.26.odt Registrar of Cooperative addressed to the Senior Police Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati. He invited our attention towards Section 79 of the said Act and submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025 is in view of Section 79(3) of the said Act. Section 79(3) of the said Act deals with the Society' s obligation to file returns and statements and Registrar' s power to enforce performance of such obligations. As far as allegations in the complaint are concerned, the same are completely different alleging misappropriation on the part of persons named in the complaint who are the Directors. Thus, he submitted that it is a complete misinterpretation of the order by the Deputy District Registrar Cooperative and, therefore, in view of the said decision in the case of Lalitha Kumari (supra), respondent No.1 - Police Station Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, 6 wp371 & 372.26.odt Amravati be directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and, thereafter, to take an appropriate decision in view of the enquiry. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that in view of the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025, the enquiry was stopped and, therefore, petitions deserve to be dismissed. He further submitted that, undisputedly, petitioners have filed a report with answering respondent No.1 on 19.10.2025. After receipt of the said report, statement of petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.371 of 2026 came to be recorded. Since the matter is under the said Act, answering respondent No.1 issued a letter to the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Amravati on 23.12.2025 and on 21.1.2026 the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Amravati issued a letter and informed to answering answering respondent No.1 that in view of the 7 wp371 & 372.26.odt order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025, it is not proper to conduct an enquiry into the matter and, therefore, preliminary enquiry has not been conducted and the FIR was not registered by the investigating agency. In view of that, present petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. On hearing both sides and perusing the entire record, it reveals that the present petitioners as well as proposed accused persons, undisputedly, are the Directors of The Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati. The petitioners have made allegations against them regarding passing of false resolutions, interpolation of the record, misappropriation of various funds, and illegal disbursement of loans. Undisputedly, the complaint was also addressed to the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. The communication issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Amravati dated 21.1.2026 shows that while answering to the letter issued by the Senior Police Inspector, Police Station City Kotwali, 8 wp371 & 372.26.odt Amravati, in view of the complaint received from petitioners on 23.12.2025, it was informed to the concerned Police Officer that in view of the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025, the police shall not proceed with any enquiry. In view of that, further enquiry was not conducted by respondent No.1. 7. Perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025 shows that the said order came to be passed in view of Section 79(3) of the said Act and learned Single Judge of this Court directed that no action based on impugned order dated 1.7.2025 passed by respondent No.2 be taken against petitioners. Paragraph No.2 of the said order specifically refers to Section 79(3) of the said Act. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the said order are reproduced, for reference, as under: “2. The petitioners primary contention is that the impugned order under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for 9 wp371 & 372.26.odt short, ‘ the Act’ ), which is by way of an interim order, is passed by respondent no.2 without serving any notice upon the petitioners under Section 79(1) of the Act and secondly; in absence of any provision of passing interim orders under Section 79(3) of the Act. 3. It is submitted that based on the impugned order, the petitioners apprehend further proceedings against them although there is no material to establish any non compliance of Section 71(1) on the part of the petitioners. In view of the issues raised by the respondents, the matter needs to be considered further.” 8. Section 79 of the said Act deals with the Society' s obligation to file returns and statements and Registrar' s power to enforce performance of such obligations. The said section, for reference, is reproduced as under: “79. [Society' s obligation to file returns and statements and Registrar' s power to enforce performance of such obligations.] [(1) The registrar may direct any society or class of societies to take action to comply with the provisions of this Act, rules made thereunder, by- laws of the society of any order passed by the Registrar under this Act; and the officer or 10 wp371 & 372.26.odt officers of the society shall be bound to comply with order within the period specified therein.] [(1-1A) The registrar may direct any society or class of societies, to keep proper books of accounts [in such form, including electronic or any other form, as may be prescribed] with respect to all sums of money received and expended by the society, and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure take place all sales and purchases of goods by the society, and the assets and liabilities of the society, and to furnish such statements and returns and to produce such records as he may require from time to time; and the officer or officers of the society shall be bound to comply with his order within the period specified therein. [(1A) Every society shall file returns within six months of the close of every financial year to which such accounts relate, to the Registrar or to the person authorised by him. The returns shall contain the following matters, namely :- (a) annual report of its activities; (b) its audited statement of accounts; (c) plans for disposal of surplus funds as approved by the general body of the society; (d) list of amendments to the by-laws of the society, if any; 11 wp371 & 372.26.odt (e) declaration regarding date of holding of its general body meeting and conduct of elections when due; (f) any other information required by the Registrar in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act. (1B) Every society shall also file a return regarding the name of the auditor or auditing firm from a panel approved by a State Government in this behalf, appointed in the general body meeting together with his written consent, within a period of one month from the date of annual general body meeting.] (2) Where any society is required to take any action [including filing of returns] under this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or to comply with an order made under the [foregoing sub-sections] and such action is not taken- (a) within the time provided in this Act, the rules or the bye laws, or the order as the case may be, or (b) where no time is so provided, within such time, having regard to the nature and extent of the action to be taken, as the Registrar may specify by notice in writing. The Registrar may himself, or through a person authorised by him, take such action, at the expense of the society; and such expense shall be recoverable from the society as if it were an arrears of land revenue. 12 wp371 & 372.26.odt (3) Where the Registrar takes action under sub- section (2), the Registrar may call upon the officer or officers of the society whom he considers to be responsible for not complying with the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or the order made under sub-section (1) and after giving such officer or officers an opportunity of being heard, may require him or them to pay to the society the expenses paid or payable by it to the State Government as a result of their failure to take action and to pay to the assets of the society such sum not exceeding [one hundred rupees] [These words were substituted for the words ' twenty-five rupees' by Maharashtra Act No. 16 of 2013 dated 13-8-2013, Section 47(d), (w.e.f. 14-2-2013).] as the Registrar may think fit for each day until the Registrar' s directions are carried out. (4) The Registrar or the authorised person on his behalf shall scrutinise the returns and information so received and take further necessary action, if required. 9. Thus, Sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the said Act states that the Registrar may direct any society or class of societies to take action to comply with provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, by-laws of the society or any order passed by the Registrar under this Act and the officer 13 wp371 & 372.26.odt or officers of the society shall be bound to comply with his order within the period specified therein. Where the Registrar takes action under sub-section (2), the Registrar may call upon the officer or officers of the society whom he considers to be responsible for not complying with the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or the order made under sub-section (1) and after giving such officer or officers an opportunity of being heard, may require him or them to pay to the society the expenses paid or payable by it to the State Government as a result of their failure to take action and to pay to the assets of the society such sum not exceeding[one hundred rupees] as the Registrar may think fit for each day until the Registrar' s directions are carried out. 10. Thus, this Section speaks about the society’ s obligation to file returns and submissions and on failure, the Registrar’s powers to enforce performance of such obligation. 14 wp371 & 372.26.odt 11. Thus, subject-matter of Section 79 of the said Act is completely different than the complaint made by the present petitioners. 12. In the case of Lalitha Kumari (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “where information received does not disclose a cognizable offence a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. Also, matrimonial disputes/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecutions illustrations and not exhaustive of all cases which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” The Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the legislative intent of Section 154, observed in paragraph No.83 that, “in terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such 15 wp371 & 372.26.odt an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR so as to initiate an offence. The requirement of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further in paragraph No.84 observed that, “the insertion of sub-section (3) of Section 154, by way of an amendment, reveals the intention of the 16 wp371 & 372.26.odt legislature to ensure that no information of commission of a cognizable offence must be ignored or not acted upon which would result in unjustified protection of the alleged offender/accused.” Therefore, the Hon’ ble Apex Court held that, “conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the “procedure established by law” and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law.” 13. In view of the above observations and considering statements and objects and reasons and protection of interests of persons, preliminary enquiry as directed by the Hon’ ble Apex Court is must in the present case also. 14. It is apparent that the District Deputy Registrar misinterpreted the order passed by learned Single Judge of 17 wp371 & 372.26.odt this Court in Writ Petition No.3589 of 2025 and directed the investigating agency not to proceed with the preliminary enquiry. 15. In view of that, both petitions deserve to be allowed by directing respondents to proceed with the preliminary enquiry and take an appropriate decision of registration of FIR if the offence prima facie is made out. Accordingly, both criminal writ petitions are allowed and disposed of. 16. In view of disposal of the present criminal writ petitions, pending criminal applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [JUDGE] [JUDGE] !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 17:55:41