1 CR.APL NO.3666/2010 & 3682/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 12. APPLN/3666/2010 LAXMAN YALLAPPA BHAGALE [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR WITH APPLN/3682/2010 ASHOK VAIJINATH SANGALE V/S THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ANR ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.K.K.Kulkarni, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. G.R.Ingole, APP for respondent State. Mr. V.S.Undre, Adv., h/f Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Adv., for R.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 17th, 2011 1. Heard. Issuance of directions of investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dt.1st July, 2010, and consequent thereupon, lodging of FIR vide Crime No.9/2010, dt.14.7.2010, is questioned by the accused/applicants. Complainant, a third party felt, the works carried consisting of construction of vermicompost shed, the pipelines and construction of road suffered to its quality, it was substandard and amount was distributed without proper verifications. 2 CR.APL NO.3666/2010 & 3682/2010 2. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submit that, based on vague allegations in the complaint, without any proper proof of material against the accused/applicants, the learned Magistrate has issued directions of investigation. The complaint is made with ulterior motives to harass the officers, which necessitates exercise of discretion by this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. To emphasize his point, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another Vs. Datar Switchgear Limited and others ( (2010) 10 SCC 479), paragraph 18 thereof reads as under: "It is well settled that though the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide in amplitude, yet they are not unlimited. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Nevertheless, it is trite that powers under the said provision have to be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court would be justified in invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. (See: R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab and Rupan Deol Bajaj &amp; Anr. Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill &amp; Anr. ( (1995) 6 SCC 194) )." 3. According to complainant, since the Magistrate has yet to take cognizance, the 3 CR.APL NO.3666/2010 & 3682/2010 accused/applicants should have waited before approaching this Court. Learned Counsel relies to the judgment in the matter of Narayandas s/o Hiralalji Sarda and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another ( 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 426). 4. Having visited the complaint in its entirety and the document/report of the competent officer, I find that no fault could be attributed to the accused/applicants as Officers of the Municipal Council, Tuljapur, in completion of the work. It was not the accused/applicants alone, had the authority but it was the Deputy Engineer of Public Works Department, Tuljapur, who too was to look into the works and take care. It is informed and not disputed that even the cheques issued to the contractor are under the signature of Collector and also of the accused/applicant. The work which has been done is in tune with the Work Tender and no fault could be attributed to the accused/applicants. I find that the impugned complaint, considering the allegations in its entirety at its face value, itself is not maintainable, which infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India to the petitioners ( 4 CR.APL NO.3666/2010 & 3682/2010 R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : 1960 AIR 862). 5. In the result, applications are allowed. The proceedings against the accused/applicants vide Crime No.9/2010 in Miscellaneous Application No.161/2010, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tuljapur, are quashed and set aside. Both the applications are allowed to the extent of the applicants/accused. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/3666-10crapl