Bombay High Court
FAIYYAZ ALTAF DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the FIR is maintainable despite the cooperative society Act and that arbitration cannot bar criminal prosecution, thus denying anticipatory bail.
Summary
The applicant, a bank manager, filed an anticipatory bail application claiming that the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, particularly sections 83, 84 and 104, rendered the FIR against him untenable and that any dispute should be resolved by arbitration under the Act. He further argued that he was ready to deposit Rs. 7,00,000 allegedly mis‑appropriated and therefore deserved interim protection. The State opposed the relief, contending that the FIR contains specific allegations of mis‑appropriation, an economic offence, and that the applicant holds a position of trust. The Court held that the existence of a prima facie case under criminal law is not barred by the cooperative society Act’s recovery procedures and that arbitration provisions cannot shield a person from criminal prosecution. Consequently, the Court refused interim bail and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act (ss. 83, 84, 104) preclude the filing of an FIR for alleged mis‑appropriation by a bank officer.
- Whether the dispute must be referred to arbitration under the Act, thereby barring criminal proceedings.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail and interim protection in view of the prima facie allegations of economic offence.
Legislation cited
- Multi State Cooperative Societies Act — s. 104, 83, 84
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- Multi State Cooperative Societies Act
- arbitration
- economic offence
- misappropriation
- interim relief
Judgment
-1-
aba1724.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1724 OF 2026
Faiyyaz Altaf Deshmukh ….Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent
Mr. Siddique Zeeshan Tehseen, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the State.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Learned Counsel for Applicant seeks interim relief. In support
of his submissions, it is his contention that since the provisions of
Multi State Cooperative Societies Act are applicable to the present
case, in view of provisions of Sections 83, 84 and 104 of the Act, the
present First Information Report itself is not tenable. In order to
support said submission, it is his further argument that in case of
recovery of any money due from any officer of Multi State Cooperative
Society/bank, it is open for the bank to adopt the procedure as laid
down by Sections 83 and 84 of the Act. In such circumstances,
according to him, question of First Information Report being held
maintainable does not arise. It is further argued that in view of
statutory provisions of arbitration in the said act, parties must go for
-2-
aba1724.26.odt
the arbitration and no offence would be tenable. It is his submission
that even if the allegations against the Applicant are accepted to be
true, this is not a case of custodial interrogation of the Applicant and
he makes a statement on instructions that the Applicant is ready to
deposit sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- which is allegedly yet to be paid by the
Applicant. It is his submission that the Applicant is ready to
cooperate in the investigation and as such, he is entitled for interim
protection.
2. Learned APP opposed grant of any interim protection to the
Applicant.
3. Prima facie perusal of the record more particularly First
Information Report clearly indicates that there are specific allegations
against the present Applicant, who is the Manager of the Bank, of
commission of act of mis-appropriation. Needless to say that the
employees of the bank more particularly officer who is working as a
Manager holds the post of trust. Undeniably, the offence in question
is an economic offence and has to be dealt with all seriousness.
-3-
aba1724.26.odt
4. This is not a case wherein apparently there is reason to believe
that this could be a case of false implication. Merely because there
are provisions under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act
prescribing procedure for recovery of money due from the
employee/officer, lodging of the First Information Report in respect of
penal offences is not precluded when prima facie offence is made out
against any person.
5. As far as contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant with
regard to provisions of arbitration under the said Act is concerned,
this Court finds no justification to agree with the said contention for
the simple reason that arbitration can be in respect of the matters
covered by the said Act and not in respect of offences under penal
laws. The offences prescribed therein are offences under the said Act
and not under Indian Penal Code of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Prima
facie, this Court finds the complicity of Applicant in this crime and
substance in the contention of learned APP that this case requires
custodial interrogation of Applicant. Merely because Applicant now
proposes to deposit amount of mis-appropriation, he is not entitled
for any relief at this stage.
-4-
aba1724.26.odt
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any
interim relief to the Applicant. Since interim relief is refused, the
Court has no other option but to reject the entire application. Hence,
application stands dismissed.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb
Checking your session…