1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.863 OF 2009 Murlidhar s/o Parbat Patil and another. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharshtra and another. ... Respondents ----- Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners. Shr K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram : P.R.Borkar, J. Date : February 24, 2010 P. C. 01. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 02. By this writ petition, petitioners seek quashment of FIR registered as CR No.177 of 2008 dated 22.7.2008 registered against them at Police Station, Parola for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of I.P.C. Petitioner No. 1 was the Sarpanch of 2 the Gram Panchayat and also President of Watter Supply and Sanitation Committee. Petitioner No. 2 was the Secretary of the said Committee. 03. Briefly stated, it is alleged against the present petitioners by Shashikant Bajirao Sonawane who is Respondent No.2 and was Sub Divisional Officer, (Water Supply) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Sub Division, Amalner that an amount of Rs.6,10,000/= was sanctioned for additional water supply scheme for village Mondhale. As per the resolution passed in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 1.5.2003, administrative sanction was given for grant of amount of Rs. 6,10,600/= for the purpose of additional water supply scheme.Thereafter,on 18.5.2008 the Executive Engineer, Water Supply Department (Rural), Jalgaon directed release of first instalment of the amount sanctioned to the Committee. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs was paid to the Committee by depositing in its bank account, the cheque drawn on the Central Bank of India, branch Parola. It is the case of complainant Shashikant Sonawane that without doing any work, the amount was withdrawn and in spite of four letters, no response was given. Thus, there was misappropriation of Rs.3.00 lakhs by both the 3 petitioners. 4. As per the petitioners, originally, one Sitabai Pandit Koli, resident of Hivarkhede (Khurd), Taluka Parola, District Jalgaon, had agreed to give her land bearing Block No.72 /43 for the purpose of sinking of well which was part of the Water Supply Scheme. However, on 15.8.2008 she gave application (Exhibit B with the petition) that members of her family were not ready to part with the land. In the application, she threatened that in case her land is forcibly taken and well is dug therein, she would commit suicide by jumping in the well. In view of the said application, offer of land by Sitabai Koli for sinking of well was cancelled by the Gram Panchayat as per resolution No.12 passed in the meeting held on 15.8.2008 with permission to dug the well in the land of one Vithal Rajaram Patil. Accordingly, proposal was to be made to the Geologist, Jalgaon. The copy of said resolution is a part of Exhibit B with the petition. Exhibit A is the letter sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, to the Petitioners i.e. President and Secretary of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Committee, Hivarkhede, informing them that since the amount for the scheme was sanctioned in the 4 budget, the work should commence in any case prior to 25.6.2008. It is also stated in the said letter that the work should begin on that day itself. 05. It is further case of the petitioners that, in fact, after calling for tenders for digging of well, contract for the same was given to one Sunil Dhansingh Patil. Accordingly Sunil Dhansingh Patil dug the well upto 20 ft. in the land of said Vitthal Rajaram Patil. We find panchanama drawn by police to that effect in CR No.70 of 2009 registered with Parola Police Station. That was a case filed by present petitioners against the said Sunil Dhansing Patil on the ground that he had accepted earnest money of Rs. 2.42 lakhs by cheque, but deliberately left the work half done and thus cheated the petitioners. Crime was registered against said Sunil Dhansingh Patil for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of I.P.C. Thus, according to the petitioners, they have not committed any of the offences alleged against them and the complaint filed by Shashikant Sonawane against them is not sustainable in law. 6. In this case, investigation is still in progress. At this stage, learned Advocate Shri N.L. Jadhav for 5 the petitioners stated on instructions from petitioner No.1 that the petitioners will cooperate with investigating agency and would satisfy it that they have done their best and not a single rupee was misappropriated by either of the petitioners. They are also ready to show to the police the record of Gram Panchayat and the accounts maintained by them and the payments which they have made in regard to the scheme. 07. Learned Counsel Shri N.B.Suryawanshi for Respondent No. 2 has certain reservations and he submits that certain documents, particularly resolutions of Gram Sabha are bogus. However, that is a matter to be gone into and decided by the investigating agency. 08. Learned A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi states that if the petitioners, cooperate, the investigating officer will investigate into all the aspects of the matter. 09. In view of submissions as above, in my opinion, this writ petition can be disposed of with certain directions. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating 6 officer who shall look into various records of gram panchayat and accounts maintained by the petitioners and will then take appropriate decision. Liberty to the petitioners to approach this court, in case charge sheet is filed against them. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of with above directions. Rule made absolute accordingly. Authenticated copy of this order be given to the learned A.P.P. for communicating directions given above to the investigating authorities. pnd/criwp863.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)