15. cr appln 3101-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3101 OF 2010 Vijay Shankar Khandale .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Sachin Chandan for the Applicant Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of FIR No. 73 of 2010 registered with Daund Police Station. The said FIR is mainly under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of IPC. Said FIR is lodged by one Maruti Ingle, working as Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Daund. According to him, earlier there was some complaint by ex-sarpanchas of the concerned Pandrewadi Grampanchayat regarding defalcation of some amount, hence, the complaint came to be lodged under the directions of the Deputy Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. Accordingly on 7th January 2010 record of the Grampanchayat Pandharewadi was 1 15. cr appln 3101-10.doc inspected and various infirmities and anomalies were found. During the period that anomalies were found, present applicant was working as Extension Officer or Rural Development Officer. During his tenure as Extension Officer and Rural Development Officer, there were different Sarpanchas. The said Sarpancahs have also been made accused and allegations were leveled against them including present applicant regarding total defalcation of Rs. 55 Lakhs under various heads. 3. The statement of Dhananjay Jadhav shows that an amount of about Rs. 24.83 lakhs were utilized without there being any prior sanctions and or documents to support why expenses were incurred. Without there being any detailed notes taken in the account book only on cryptic notes an amount of Rs. 22.76 lakhs was expended. An amount of Rs. 2.75 lakhs was expended under Indira Awas Gharakul Scheme without there being any sanctions and the amount of Rs. 3.3 lakhs and odd was expended without there being any entry in the relevant registers or supporting documents. 4. Apparently, during the tenure of different Sarpanchas, present applicant was still in the service of the said Grampanchayat on different posts and he was responsible to keep the accounts as per the law which allegedly he has not done and as such he faced departmental enquiry and presently he is under suspension since December, 2009. 2 15. cr appln 3101-10.doc 5. Reportedly, the investigation is still going on and prima facie defalcated amount is more than Rs. 55 lakhs. Considering the allegations and considering that it is the local government amount which is utilized without there being any proper accounts, this is not a fit case for quashing of FIR at this stage. 6. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant should be given an opportunity to answer the allegations against him for which he be allowed to enter the Grampanchayat office. However, he apprehends that if the applicant enters the Grampanchayat office, he would be arrested, hence he prayed that no coercive action be taken by the police against the applicant i.e the applicant should not be arrested. 7. As far as this prayer is concerned, admittedly, the applicant had earlier preferred application for anticipatory bail before this Court being Cri. Application No. 2785 of 2010. By order dated 23rd June 2010 [Coram : A.R. Joshi,J], the said application for anticipatory bail has been rejected. Learned APP on instructions states that since lodging of the said FIR till today, the applicant is absconding. As the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by this Court, it is not possible to consider the said request, hence the prayer is 3 15. cr appln 3101-10.doc rejected. 8. Application disposed of in the above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4