At the outset, it is observed that being in helm .of affairs of the Society as its Chairman the petitioner was under an obligation to pay requisite amount to the complainant upon maturity of his Fixed Deposit Account. Thus, dilly-dallying and reluctance on the part of petitioner to pay requisite amount of the complainant has rightly prompted him to initiate action against him. While, it is true that decision rendered by the Division Bench in PIL aforesaid has forced the Society to stop its banking activities but then a legitimate amount, which the Society owes to its member/account holder, cannot be denied to him on that pretext. However, in the backdrop of hampering of banking activities as a consequence of judicial intervention, it is rather difficult to fathom that gravamen of the charge attributed to him is prima facie made out. Moreover, factum of acknowledgment by the petitioner to pay requisite amount to the complainant lias also persuaded this Court to believe that prima facie criminal delinquency of 'fhe. pefitioner for the aforesaid offences is under serious cloud. Although, factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor indicates that charge-sheet against ;one: bf;?accused, ,named in the FIR, Nagendra Rawal, h;i's" 'b.e&$?i$l$@ifo$the aforesaid offences but then, this sort of' defielopm&nt .itself cannot be a decisive factor to decline interference in the matter at this stage. It is also brought to notice of the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner jtlfat entire amount, deposited by the complainant under Fixed Deposit Account of the Society, has been paid to the complainant, cannot be eschewed by the Court for appreciating his afflictions. Concurrence of the learned .Public Prosecutor with the aforesaid submissjon.of leafined counsel for the petitioner is also significant in ti& lighh. ofi'cjl/eta"<[on~~ made in FIR. That -.' *G ,... ~. .* ** apart, nonappearance of the complainant, despite service of notice, also strengthens belief of the Court that after receiving his requisite due amount he too is not interested to pursue the matter against the petitioner. Therefore, taking into account peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, I feel persuaded to exercise inherent jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist, In my considered opinion, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
