1 Cri. Application 1624 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1624 Of 2011 Kalyan s/o Devidasrao Vategaonkar. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Ganesh V. Mohekar, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 - in person present. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28th JUNE 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also respondent No.2 (original complainant) in person. 2) The applicant, Block Development Officer, seeks quashment of prosecution initiated on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 being RCC No.133 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Purna pursuant thereof lodging of FIR No.40/2010 dated 30th March 2010 at Police Station Purna, District Parbhani for offences under sections 420, 463, 464, 465,469,470 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 Cri. Application 1624 of 2011 3) The respondent No.2 has a grievance that the Government property, to be allotted in re-development, was eligible for 164 deserving persons, however, the Gram Sevak of village Kantheshwar in tune and in connivance with the applicant, Block Development Officer, facilitated by effecting transfer based on completion of Form No.8 and additionally about 37 persons are benefited by allotment of the Government land which is in contravention of the very scheme promulgated by the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No.2, complainant, has no personal interest in the matter as he informs to be holding huge immovable property in the village. As a whistle blower he sought information in respect of working of the Gram Sevak of the village at the material time. However, the applicant has allegedly suppressed the information and gave information not concerned with the requisition. 4) Over all survey of the complaint illustrates that there was tacit understanding between the applicant and other officials, Gram Sevak of the village in disposing of the Government property to unauthorised persons for extraneous consideration. In the light of this situation, the prosecution against the accused / applicant cannot be said to be an abuse of process of law. The application lacks merit, dismissed. 3 Cri. Application 1624 of 2011 5) The observations in respect of the applicant - Block Development Officer are prima facie in nature need not be weighed. Liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate authorities. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl